Search and Categories

Here’s The Scoop…Chief Gooding Comments…..

May 26, 2009 by Barbara

BUT ARE LBTS ELECTED OFFICIALS LISTENING?………

Excerpts…Feb. 2009 /May 2009 ….

‘Clarifying misconceptions’

From the February 2009 Issue

‘Carole Moore By Carole Moore

It was all over in a matter of seconds. Here’s what preliminary reports revealed: Two officers answer a domestic call. A man barricades himself in a bathroom with a knife. The officers are familiar with this guy – he’s a mental patient and drug abuser who often turns violent. Inside, a woman screams that the man is trying to hurt himself with the knife, so officers kick down the door. The man bolts – one officer covers the woman, the other covers the man. The armed man then goes after one of the officers who shoots and kills him. All of this takes place in a narrow hallway in a matter of seconds.’

‘The call took place on Christmas Eve and is still being investigated. In the newspaper account of the incident two things stood out: A town official who commented that he’s known officers to disarm people with guns and knives; and further comments by readers who believed that the officer should have tried to disarm the man with a conducted-energy device (with which the officers apparently were not equipped) or other less-lethal weapon. Many remarks blamed the officers for not taking down the mental subject without hurting him.’

‘My suggestion for towns that do not have police commissioners or someone schooled in police work at the helm is that public officials who are not police – town commissioners or whoever governs your root organization – need to be educated as to the realities of this job.’

‘Most of this is simple, but it’s amazing the misconceptions the public, press and public officials often have. Nip those knee-jerk reactions by at least educating your own officials.’

Full text for Feb….http://www.officer.com/print/Law-Enforcement-Technology/Clarifying-misconceptions/1$45839

BC- Thanks to a faithful Reader …a copy of the current May issue includes some input from LBTS Chief Scott Gooding…which is very timely as we proceed with the ridiculous assertions from Com. Clottey (“flashbacks” circa 1960’s ) that residents cannot reach the police…perpetuating that there is a “fear” of calling the police to register complaints due to  “fear of retribution”…the questioning on car robbery reports…and the VFD  presentation tonight …per VM McIntee, Comm. Silverstone and Comm. Clottey  for not being “recognized” enough for their role in the hyperbaric chamber explosion…( they got recognized at the last meeting quite a lot……and they’ve got the job for 5 years)…

The article begins with Ms. Moore stating that she appreciates hearing from readers and “sometimes I find a message so good, I need to share it. That’s the case with the one I received from Chief Scott Gooding of Broward County (Fla.) Sheriff’s Office.”…Chief Gooding commented on the Feb article above…and added “some other excellent ideas that he graciously agreed to share with you”…She went on to say his points have a lot of merit in this time when law enforcement is faced with hard economic times and face less when looking to fulfill their needs at budget time….”Having sympathetic public officials can tip the balance” when law enforcement is competing for funding….The question asked is how to keep the department’s needs at the top of the list of those allocating the funds…namely the elected officials?…

Excerpts…of advice offered…

Chief Scott Gooding…

“Take your commissioners on a tour of the communications or dispatch center”…911 call centers…”It’s inevitable that once elected, they will receive calls from residents complaining they couldn’t get through to the police”….Having the tour Chief Gooding suggests will enlighten the commissioners to how the calls are handled and routed…

BC- Readers will recall Comm. Clottey went and did just this last year…was not liking what she saw…Guess she wasn’t “enlightened”?…

“Have commissioners do ride-alongs”……adding ‘to get the elected officials involved with a “Citizens Emergency Response Team”…a civilian group that assists the law’…continuing on to say having elected officials involved makes it “easier to concentrate on your job during stressful events”…

BC-LBTS has Citizen on Patrol…but no Emergency Response Team”…HMMM…food for thought?…Or would it be looked upon as an oversight committee?…

” Keep elected officials (including the city or county manager) informed of what’s going on via e-mail. Short e-mails to each official prevent many phone calls”…”Just make sure “ALL” officials are included , don’t leave anyone out of the loop”…

BC- Per Comm. Dodd’s request for just this and the BSO Cybervisor…for LBTS ….CHECK!….

The suggestions continue on with “thoroughly familiarizing your elected officials with your department”…thus taking the “mystery out of policing”…by showing the ” hard working, honest,dedicated individuals who put their lives on the line  for the taxpayers”…adding “the old habit of building a barrier between the department and the outside only results in mutual mistrust and criticism”…

BC- Words that the VFD should consider……..as they continue in the opposite direction of transparency…..going deeper and deeper into secrecy…building  barriers…resulting in mistrust and criticism…

“Furthermore , Gooding suggests that building a bridge between officials and your agency, you also lessen the impact of critical incidents”…Gooding said ” I have also found [it helps] prevent the shock and awe of duty deaths, killing of suspects and handling natural catastrophes”…He went on to say it builds a rapport and “amplifies” the image of the agency, thus improving the chances for funding….

The article ends with this…” Government that cloaks itself in secrecy or assumes a paternalistic role is neither successful nor trusted.”…Reiterating …to bring the elected officials “on-board” by being up-front with them…”Being proactive can help you avoid being reactive”……

BC- Unfortunately with an BSP Police “agenda” in the works by the Mc-Furth Gang…it’s a no-go…as witnessed by recent actions…stated above…

BC- Readers will recall  at the May 13, 2009 Referendum Workshop the current “Gang of 3” on the dais repeatedly said they are there to “protect us”from future commissions……and from ourselves….In this writer’s opinion the “2-Hats” and the Town Manager ” absolutely represent a ….” Government that cloaks itself in secrecy or assumes a paternalistic role [ which ] is neither successful nor trusted.”…. leaving Readers with only one way to stop it…to turn it around…with their  vote in 2010…

more to come….

Post Division

Here’s The Scoop…Vacating That Ordinance For 2nd Reading… Commissioners?…

May 26, 2009 by Barbara

HOUSE FOR RENT…….BY THE WEEK….IN LBTS….

BC- Once again …an Ord. 2nd reading will most likely be put on hold!…This is becoming  commonplace with this current Commission…Town Administration and Town law firm…at a cost to the taxpayers along with the cost of time involved!…The vacation ord.  as previously posted runs into trouble for those 46 (# we were told affected) who are keeping afloat in LBTS by renting out their properties to thwart off foreclosure…Recently Wilton Manors made a similar ord. for 30 days (LBTS is for 28 days) as a minimum length of rental allowed…and is now facing a property rights lawsuit…A look at the Town law firm shows a familiar connection to out town…it is the law firm of former Town Atty. Jim Cherof!…

5/26/09…..

10 Ordinances…

2.    Ordinances 2nd Reading – “PUBLIC HEARING”

b.    Ordinance 2009-19: AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LAUDERDALE-BY-THE-SEA, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTIONS 12-2(c) AND 12-22 OF ARTICLE I, “BUSINESS TAXES,” CHAPTER 12, “LICENSES,” OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES; AND CREATING A DEFINITION OF “VACATION RENTAL” IN SECTION 30-155, ALLOWING VACATION RENTALS AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN THE RS-4, RS-5, RD-10, RM-25 AND RM-50 ZONING DISTRICTS, AND CREATING SECTION 30-327 “VACATION RENTALS,” FOR RELATED SUPPLEMENTAL ZONING REGULATIONS, ALL WITHIN ARTICLE V “ZONING,” CHAPTER 30 “UNIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS” OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

‘Broward’s Wilton Manors and Dade’s Miami Beach to Face Lawsuits for Short-term Rental Bans
Posted on Daily Business Review

‘Wilton Manors
Recent ban on short-term rentals invites lawsuit by 14 homeowners
April 02, 2009 By: Terry Sheridan

The house on Northwest Second Avenue in Wilton Manors looks like any other lushly landscaped single-family home with a pool in a pleasant community.

But owners Louis Heidel and James Lang don’t use their house like most of their neighbors do. In ads on http://www.altraverse.com/, Heidel and Lang invite vacationers to “enter, exhale, escape” and rent the house.

Now they and 12 other owners of vacation-rental homes face city citations of $500 per day for code enforcement violations after Wilton Manors voted recently to ban short-term rentals in residential areas.

The 14 owners are suing the city, saying officials misinterpreted their own zoning law. Their lawsuit in Broward Circuit Court is one of several similar actions across the state as property owners take on municipalities eager to eliminate “businesses” operating in residential areas.

The property owners named in the lawsuit individually or as companies — including Heidel, Lang, Jeffery Hill, William Williams, Money Tree 1 and 2 LLC, 2016 Mid Century House LLC and Pleas’D in Lauderdale LLC — filed a seven-count suit last week. They claim the city’s decision to change its short-term rental law denied them due process and is an inverse condemnation of their properties. An inverse condemnation claim alleges a government action has taken or diminished property value, and owners typically seek to be paid for that loss.

The owners want the city’s action overturned.

None of the owners could be reached for comment.

The city has not responded to the suit.

City Attorney Kerry Ezrol of Goren Cherof Doody & Ezrol in Fort Lauderdale did not return a phone call.

Mayor Gary Resnick, an attorney in the Fort Lauderdale office of GrayRobinson, declined to comment on the lawsuit.

“It’s my understanding that these people bought these houses knowing they weren’t zoned for short-term rentals,” he said.

The City Commission voted Feb. 24 that single-family homes rented out more than three times per year or for less than 30 days at a time should be considered businesses or transient housing. Transient housing isn’t allowed in the residential zoning district where the properties are located, so the city issued code enforcement citations to the owners.’

To be addressed tonight at the LBTS Reg Commission meeting…7pm Jarvis Hall….

http://www.vacationrentals.com/vacation-rentals/Lauderdale-by-the-Sea-Florida.html

more to come….

Post Division

Here’s The Scoop….Bert J. Harris…Who Knew?…

May 26, 2009 by Barbara

THIS IS BERT J. HARRIS….

‘Bert J. Harris, Jr.
Known as a champion of private property rights in Florida, former State Representative Bert J. Harris Jr., made the promotion of agriculture his life’s avocation. A 1943 honors graduate of the University of Florida with a degree in agriculture, Harris served as a corporal in the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II. A citrus grower and rancher himself, Harris owned Rainbow Caladiums and was an independent farming consultant until his election into the Legislature. Harris’ efforts with the passage of private property rights to protect landowners from excessive government resulted in the naming of the bill the “Bert J. Harris Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act.” He also sponsored legislation to settle citrus canker cases, passed legislation to prevent the disparagement of perishable food products and worked to meet the Greenbelt Law.’

BC….Thanks to a faithful Reader for finding a short bio of Bert J. Harris…Mr. Harris was far- reaching in being “attached” to property rights and big time litigation…as shown in his bio…he was also involved in the citrus canker cases….which most likely rank right up there with Bert J. Harris suits…for litigation…For this writer living in Pompano Beach in the 1990’s this property “invasion” came firsthand with citrus canker “police” hopping our fence in search of their prey…as they roamed the neighborhoods…

‘City of Pompano Beach, et al v. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services:
As indicated in prior Litigation Reports, on May 24, 2002, Judge Fleet issued a 19 page Order
on the Motion for Temporary Injunction in which he concluded that the Amendments
regarding the Citrus Canker litigation enacted by the Florida Legislature as codified in Florida
Statutes Section 581.184, was an invalid invasion of the constitutional safeguard contained in
both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Florida. The Judge
ultimately entered a statewide Stay Order enjoining the Department of Agriculture from
entering upon private property in the absence of a valid search warrant issued by an authorized
judicial officer and executed by one authorized by law to do so. The Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services filed its Notice of Appeal seeking review by the 4th
District Court of Appeal. The Department of Agriculture also filed a Motion with the 4th
District Court of Appeal seeking that the appellate procedures be expedited, and a motion in which
there was a suggestion for “bypass” certification to the Supreme Court of Florida. The
Department of Agriculture contended that in light of the gravity and emergency nature of the
issues, the matter should be certified by the 4th District Court of Appeal directly to the
Supreme Court for its adjudication since the Department of Agriculture anticipated that
regardless as to how the 4th District Court of Appeal rules on the matter, it would in fact be
appealed by either the Department of Agriculture or by the County and coalition of cities to
the Supreme Court of Florida for final adjudication. The 4th District Court of Appeal in fact
for only the fourth time in its history, did certify this matter directly to the Florida Supreme
Court for adjudication. The Florida Supreme Court however, refused to hear this matter at
this stage and remanded it back to the 4th District Court of Appeal for further proceeding.
Both the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the County and
coalition of cities have filed their respective Appellate Briefs. The Florida Department of
Agriculture recently filed a Reply Brief to the Brief filed by Broward County and the coalition
of cities. The Town Attorney has once again spoken with the Chief Appellate Attorney for
Broward County, Andrew Meyers, and he has again confirmed at this point,that oral argument
has not yet been set by the 4th District Court of Appeal. In the meantime, the Florida
Department of Agriculture has served a series of Interrogatories upon the Town of Davie and
each of the other defendants. The Town Attorney’s Office has been in contact with Mr.
Bernard and confirmed with him that the Town has no knowledge of any employee,
contractor or representative of the State having entered upon the Town’s property to inspect
any of its trees for canker. An appropriate response to the Interrogatories is being prepared
and will be filed within the time permitted by the Rules of Civil Procedure’
http://www.davie-fl.gov/Gen/DavieFL_CouncilAgn/archives/PDFs/2002/1016meeting/06.pdf

‘ALI-ABA Course of Study
Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation
January 8 – 10, 2009
Miami Beach, Florida
Florida’s Citrus Canker Eradication Program:
A Case Study on Litigating a Takings Claim as a Class Action
By
Robert C. Gilbert
Hanzman Gilbert LLP
Coral Gables, Florida

Robert C. Gilbert is a member of Hanzman Gilbert LLP in Miami, Florida, who limits his
practice to complex litigation and arbitration. Mr. Gilbert may be contacted at (305) 529-9100 or
[email protected]

Tenney v. City of Miami Beach, 11 So. 2d 188, 189 (Fla. 1942).

Johnson v. Plantation General Hospital, 641 So. 2d 58, 60 (Fla. 1994).
Florida’s Citrus Canker Eradication Program:
a Case Study on Litigating a Takings Claim as a Class Action
by Robert C. Gilbert, Esq.

More than half a century ago, the Florida Supreme Court articulated the importance of the
class action device:
[T]he very purpose of a ‘class suit’ is to save the multiplicity of suits,
to reduce the expense of litigation, to make legal procedures more

effective and expeditious, and to make available a remedy that would

otherwise not exist. That rationale is even more compelling today. With over crowded courts and enormous costs
associated with complex litigation,class actions often determine whether victims of wrong doing will
recover damages or whether such conduct will go unpunished. Courts have repeatedly emphasized
that the “purpose of a class action is to provide litigants who share common questions of law and fact
with an economically viable means of addressing their needs in court.”

The class action device can be successfully utilized by practitioners representing property
owners in takings litigation. Litigating certain takings claims as a class action may provide an
effective and efficient remedy to many affected property owners who would otherwise be unable to
pursue a viable remedy on an individual basis. Our eight year experience prosecuting inverse
condemnation claims on behalf of thousands of Florida homeowners provides a case study on
handling a takings case as a class action.
Background. Citrus canker is a bacterial disease affecting citrus trees.’

The Greenbelt Law…

‘Tax Loophole Repeal Overdue
Wed, 2008-07-09

A 1959 Florida state law was intended to preserve agriculture. A loophole-laden “greenbelt law” allows developers to win farm subsidies (tax breaks) even when they are preparing land for subdivisions and strip malls. This practice that is widespread across Florida places and unfair tax burden on residential and commercial business property owners.

It was reported in the St. Petersburg Times June 28th issue that Hillsborough election chief Buddy Johnson received an agriculture tax break after leasing 19.98 acres for $20 per year as grazing for a few cows reducing the tax value of his property more than $560,000.
An August 21, 2005 internet report by Miami Herald reporters listed several tax loophole abuses:

• Developer Armand Codina and his partners pay ranchers to keep cows
on their land in northeast Miami-Dade County so they can get agriculture tax breaks while building industrial warehouses. Cordina also requested Miami-Dade to declare a soggy wasteland littered with down trees an environmentally contaminated “brownfield”, resulting in 2004 property tax savings $250,273.
• Developer Pan American purchased a lot to build warehouses; industrial
zoning prohibits farming. He won a tax break after paying a rancher to
graze some cows on his lot, resulting in a 2004 tax savings of $183,207.
• Sixteen cows were placed on 49 acres amid concrete pads and utility
boxes where a developer plans to build homes priced at $1.5 million and
up. Broward County appraiser’s office denied the application for a tax
break, however a hearing officer overturned the decision, no appeal was
filed, resulting in a 2004 Tax savings $140,168.
• “But of the top 60 tax break recipients in South Florida in 2004, more than two-thirds are not farmers.”

Associate Press report published April 3, 2006: “Orlando – Walt Disney World avoids $1.5-million in Osceola County taxes each year by leasing some of its land to a farmer and claiming almost 650 undeveloped acres as timberland and swamp marsh.

The “tax loophole” was placed in this law by Florida Legislators to benefit land developers at the expense of millions of other Florida property owners. The developers who have not taken advantage of this “tax loophole” are to be commended.

Our economy is the worse now than it has been in decades. Anyone who doubts that we are in a “recession” also must believe in the “tooth fairy”. What could be a more appropriate time than now to repeal this “tax loophole”? Its repeal is long overdue. Gov. Crist should call a “special session” of the Legislature before the November 2008 elections for the sole purpose of repealing this “tax loophole”.

Darrell Weston, Beverly Hills, Florida’

BC- Bert J. Harris will be discussed behind closed doors…tonight at the LBTS Regular Commission meeting…7 pm Jarvis Hall…

more of both sides to come……….

Post Division

Here’s The Scoop…May 26,2009 LBTS Agenda…Get Ready For A Marathon…

May 24, 2009 by Barbara

THE MAY 26, 2009  LBTS REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING MARATHON….

Backup is online….If it does not show May 26,2009…click refresh button….http://www.lauderdalebythesea-fl.gov/town/backup2009.htm

1.    CALL TO ORDER, MAYOR ROSEANN MINNET

2.    PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

3.    INVOCATION

4.    PRESENTATIONS

a.    Presentation recognizing the VFD for recent significant events

BC- The VFD will be recognized for its “recent significant events”…which should mean the hyperbaric chamber explosion and the near drownings at the beach…Both are previously posted in the scoops/VFD categories….and while they did their jobs well…many questions should not be brushed aside…such as the difference in the CAD report and Chief Perkin’s report-press release concerning the time frame at the chamber for starters……It’s a  fact that the VFD saved 2 people  at the beach from rip currents but it’s also a fact that “good samaritans” saved 3 others…..and it’s a fact that the press  were called by the VFD themselves and were in receipt of some very embarrassing comments from the “VFD Spokesman” VM-Dep. Chief McIntee crassly stating the Holland tourists “would not be going home in a plane (or seat) but in a box if it had not been for the VFD” that day…or they would be “deader than a doornail”…OUCH!…These comments along with the adverse comments from the media when concluding their reports concerning LBTS not having lifeguards and stating LBTS  was unable to afford lifeguards…One broadcast advised swimmers to go where there are lifeguards to be safe!….Time for lifeguards on the March 2010 referendum….At the last Commission meeting Comm. Clottey wanted a plan in place for media after any such events…The Town better get on this ASAP and the VFD…needs another spokesman that won’t drive the tourists away!…

b.    Proclamation recognizing National EMS week

c.    Gift to Town from Mr. Jerry Sehl

5.    PUBLIC COMMENTS

BC- Expect a long line of comments this evening…the short- term vacation rental “people”…and the kite- surfing “people”…who will either speak now or when the item comes up…Ordinance 2nd reading for vacation rentals…and Old business for kite surfing…

6.    REPORTS

a.    Finance and Budget Monthly Report – April 2009 (Manager Colon)

BC-As usual a few interesting finds within the monthly report or April 2009…At the last commission meeting Comm. Silverstone spoke of the Town Manager “saving us” $200,000 per the budgeted amount for the Town Atty….This writer pointed out that numerous times the prior Town Atty. Abbott when questioned about an ordinance or resolution would reply he did not draw the item up…they were done by the Town Manager…which most often were substandard…and then went back to be fixed…a practice we thought was long behind us?…

General Fund…Expenditure…Town Atty…Original budget $235,400/Amended budget $235,400.00/ YTD Actual $109,851.91/ Current MTH $32,551.85/ Encumbered YTD 0/ Unencumbered balance  $125,548.09…51.2% of the budget

WE hear about being in the “black”…

General Fund-….Expenditure…Debt Service….Orig. budget Principal $222,764.00/ Amend. budget $ 222,764.00/ YTD Actual $110,246.07/ Curr. MTH 0/ Enc. YTD 0/ Uenc. balance $112,517.93….Original budget …Interest $135,134.00/ Amend. budget $35,134.00/ YTD Actual $69,055.47/ Curr. MTH 0/ Enc. YTD 0/ Unenc. balance $66,078.53….Totals…Orig. budget $357,898.00/ Amend budget $357,989.00/ YTD Actual $179,301.54/ Curr. MTH 0/ Enc. YTD $ 0/ Unenc. balance $178,596.46….50.1% of the budget

Capital Improvement Fund….Orig. Budget $674,812.00/ Amend. budget $ 674,812.00/ YTD Actual 0/ Curr. MTH 0/ Enc. YTD 0/ Unenc. balance $ 674,812.00…0% of the budget

Capital Improvement Fund….Debt Service payments…Orig. budget principal  #1 $270,025.00/ Amend. budget $ 270,025.00/ YTD Actual 0/ Curr. MTH 0/ Enc. YTD 0/ Unenc. balance $270,025.00….Orig. budget #2 $ 1,052,567.00/ Amend. budget $ 1,052,567.00/ YTD Actual $543,498.00/ Curr. MTH 0/ Enc. YTD 0/ Unenc. balance $ 509,074.00…Orig. budget #1 Interest $ 90,596.00/ Amend. budget $ 90,596.00/ YTD Actual 0/ Curr.. MTH 0/ Enc. YTD 0/ Unenc. balance $ 90,596.00…Orig. budget #2 Interest $ 176,394/ Amend. budget $ 176,394.00/ YTD Actual $ 70,986.54/ Curr, MTH 0/ Enc. YTD 0/ Uenc. balance $ 105,40746…Totals…Orig. budget $ 1,589,582.00/ Amend. budget $ 1,589,582.00/ YTD Actual $ 614,479.54/ Curr, MTH 0/ Enc. YTD 0/ Unenc. balance $ 975,102.46/ 38.7% of the budget

Parking Fund…Debt Service…Orig. budget…Principal $ 102,088.00/ Amend. budget $ 102,088.00/ YTD Actual $ 55,535.98/ Curr. MTH o/ Enc. YTD 0/ Unenc. balance $ 46,552.02….Interest…Orig. budget $ 75,051.00/ Amend. budget $75,051.00/ YTD Actual $ 33,208.42/ Curr. MTH 0/ Enc. YTD o/ Uenc. balance $ 41,482.58…Totals…Orig. budget $ 177,139.00/ Amend. budget $ 177,139.00/ YTD Actual $ 88,744,40/ Curr. MTH 0/ Enc. YTD 0/ Uenc. balance $88,394.60…50.1% of the budget

b.    Development Services Monthly Report – April 2009 (Assistant Town Manager Olinzock)

BC- Visitor…592/ Inf. calls received…579/ verbal warnings…15/ notices of violation …51/ citations issued…3/ special master cases…11/ complaints investigated…16/ re-inspection conducted…115/ lien searches…17/ zoning reviews…53/ final inspections…11/ bus. tax license inspections…9/ public records requests…2

(3)…Staff performs morning and afternoon daily patrols. These are conducted to monitor activities such as: construction sites, unlicensed contractors, noise ordinance violations,dogs on the beach and in parks, water use restriction violations, beach furniture and illegal signage.

(12)…Staff continues to monitor all single family rentals. No violations were noted.

(13) Staff continues to monitor the sidewalk cafe’s.

(14) Staff began monitoring the new pavilion for peddlers and solicitors. No violations were observed.

(15) Staff inspected, issued permits and monitored all of the approved special events.

(16) Staff reviewed all new special event applications.(22) Staff prepared and delivered and/or mailed letters along with the amended ordinance regarding the parking/storage of vessels in the North Beach annexed area to all residents who were originally cited. The letters advised the homeowners on how to obtain a permit to keep their vessels/trailers on their property.

(24) Staff prepared and mailed a courtesy letter to residents of Bel-Air that have not applied for their sewer hook-up permit.

(26) Staff compared the Broward County Bus. Tax Recpt. list with thew Town’s list  to ensure all the businesses listed were licensed in Town. Staff began issuing verbal warnings to those businesses in Town that were operating without a Tax Receipt. A total of 58 were identified.

(27) Staff issued 2 verbal warnings to 2 hotels regarding prohibited use of vending machines. Both were removed from the properties.

(28) Staff received complaint of damage done to new pavilion. The pavilion was inspected and minor damage was found to some of the sq. concrete pillars. The broken concrete was removed and the pillars were roped off by Municipal Services until they can be repaired.

(30) Staff issued verbal a verbal warning to a business owner and the property owner for violating their approved sidewalk cafe’ permit by not placing the barrier around the cafe’ as required. The table and chairs were removed.

(31) Staff completed inspection of lights out in front of Oriana to ensure new the lenses  that were installed are going to cut down on the glare. They make a significant difference.

(50) Staff reviewed 12 submitted and/or active fire related permits.

(51) Staff completed 13 permits inspections for fire compliance.

full list in backup online…

c.    Municipal Services Monthly Report – April 2009 (Assistant Town Manager Olinzock)

BC- Tel calls recd….145/ service req. /complaints…recd. curr. mth…10…

d.    BSO Police Monthly Report – April 2009 (Chief Gooding)

BC- auto theft…5/ burg. business…1/ burg conveyance…23/ burg. res….6/ burg. structure…0/ forcible sex…0/ homicide…0/ robbery…2/ theft- grand…10/ theft- petit…13…totals 66 …decrease from 2008 -9.1%

e.    VFD Fire Monthly Report – April 2009 (Chief Perkins)

BC-Numbers are down again this month…Reg in-town members 33 (last mo. 32)…Associate out of Town 27 (last mo. 32)…Calls fire/rescue 24…Medical 89…Training fire-drill 8/ watercraft-drill 2/ beach patrol hrs. ATV1 75/ ATV2 99.5….Station Watch combined members 37 944+ hrs…( We were told all members stayed overnight each mo.)..Community serv. combined members  52…154 hrs…Reg members …4 (5%) non-cert./FF1 19 (23%)/ FF2 10 (12%)/ CPR-1st responders 20 (20%)/ EMT-B 6 (10%)/ Paramedic 5 (5%)…Assoc. members…FF2 27(37%0/ CPR-1st. responders 6 (2%)/ EMT-B 16(23%)/ Paramedic 5(11%)…Unit Response times…Eng. 12 o:07:21/ Eng.212 0:01:59/ Eng.312 0:03:07/ Sq.12 0:02:12/ Chief 12 o:o1:35/ Dep.12 0:02:39/ Util 12 0:03:33

f.    AMR EMS Monthly Report – April 2009 (Operations Manager Liddle)

BC- 0:03:26 response time avg. …….98% of calls in less than 6 minutes…

g.    Alley Way Report (Town Engineer Shaun Bamforth)

BC- This alleyway study is highly suspect…it was done before the beach pavilion opened and it content shows a real bias towards the pier owners…The amount of use declared for this alleyway is incorrect..especially with the beach pavilion open…To decide that the Aruba Cafe’ alley should be 2-way…that all the other alleyways should remain open 1 way…and to conclude this alley is the only one denied the same use…smells to high heaven…in this writer’s opinion…

7.    PUBLIC SAFETY DISCUSSION

8.    TOWN MANAGER REPORT

a.    Notice of approval for placement of AT&T cabinet within the utility easement located at 229 Hibiscus

b.    Notice of approval of a minor site plan revision submitted by Minto Developers for building regarding building colors

c.    Town Manager shall have authority to waive parking fees for local government agencies use of the Bougainvilla Drive Parking lot for public good for of period of time not to exceed 24 hours.

9.    APPROVAL OF MINUTES

a.    April 28, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes

b.    April 29, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes continued from April 28, 2009

c.    May 13, 2009 Workshop Minutes

10.    ORDINANCES

1.    Ordinances 1st Reading – “Public Comments”

a.    Ordinance 2009-23: AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LAUDERDALE-BY-THE SEA AMENDING CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 6-71 THRU 6-75 PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF TOWN PERMITS FOR WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR UTILITY EASEMENTS AND ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INSPECTION, PERMIT REVIEW AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION AS ARTICLE IV OF CHAPTER 6 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

2.    Ordinances 2nd Reading – “PUBLIC HEARING”
a.    Ordinance 2009-20: AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LAUDERDALE-BY-THE-SEA, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 30 “UNIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS,” ARTICLE IX “NOTICE OF INTENT OF PENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS” OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO EXEMPT FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES REQUIRING NOTICE OF PENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THOSE ORDINANCES THAT ONLY REGULATE ACCESSORY USES OF RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY AND TO PROVIDE FOR METHOD OF MAILING NOTICE TO APPLICANTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

BC- This was brought to the attention of the P & Z Board by board member Buzz Oldaker…for the Town to use Certified mail for notification…

b.    Ordinance 2009-19: AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LAUDERDALE-BY-THE-SEA, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTIONS 12-2(c) AND 12-22 OF ARTICLE I, “BUSINESS TAXES,” CHAPTER 12, “LICENSES,” OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES; AND CREATING A DEFINITION OF “VACATION RENTAL” IN SECTION 30-155, ALLOWING VACATION RENTALS AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN THE RS-4, RS-5, RD-10, RM-25 AND RM-50 ZONING DISTRICTS, AND CREATING SECTION 30-327 “VACATION RENTALS,” FOR RELATED SUPPLEMENTAL ZONING REGULATIONS, ALL WITHIN ARTICLE V “ZONING,” CHAPTER 30 “UNIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS” OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

BC- We hear the Commissioners have been contacted by vacation rental landlords that are in a bind in this economy with their properties and are staying out of foreclosure by renting out a week at a time..This new ordinance denies them that right, with  28 days being the least amount of time for a vacation rental. These owners say if they are prevented from continuing to rent …they will lose their homes and the Town will be faced with a major hit on the tax rolls…We also hear that in other towns…there have been lawsuits against the towns for denial of having the right to rent out  weekly…Another lawsuit for the Town on top of Bert J. Harris?…

c.    Ordinance 2009-21: AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LAUDERDALE-BY-THE-SEA, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 10-32 “TEMPORARY DISCONTINUATION OF SERVICE” OF ARTICLE II “CONTAINERS AND RECEPTACLES,” CHAPTER 10 “GARBAGE AND REFUSE” OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM TIME PERIOD FOR FILING OF A REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY DISCONTINUATION OF SOLID WASTE SERVICES FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; CODIFICATION; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE
11.    COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

12.    CONSENT AGENDA

a.    Commission approval of the renewal of hurricane disaster agreements with Tele-Vac, PBS&J, and Man Con beginning June 1, 2009 thru June 1, 2011 (Assistant Town Manager Olinzock)

b.    Bel Air entrance signs.  Commission to approve location, site layout, and final design drawings (Assistant Town Manager Olinzock)

BC- backup shows Chen & Assoc. drawings…

c.    Draft policy on mitigation of code compliance fines and recorded liens as directed by the Town Commission.  Mitigation of fines adjudicated by the Special Magistrate can be mitigated by the Magistrate if not recorded with Broward County (Exhibit A) and if recorded may be mitigated by the Town Commission (Exhibit B) (Assistant Town Manager Olinzock)

BC- This was brought to the dais previously by Comm. Dodd after a woman came to the podium and informed the dais of Pompano Beach having a mitigation policy…the Town staff does not recommend it…(surprise..surprise)…but..if the commission decides to forge ahead…2 examples are provided for use…

d.    Commission approval of the proposed location of the median cut on El Mar Drive by Minto as approved on March 19, 2009 by the Commission and John Carter (Minto) (Assistant Town Manager Olinzock)

BC- This is being brought back to show where Marc Furth wants the median cut back to…to keep the turn around away from his motel…

e.    Commission approval of issuance of fifty (50) parking permits for Broward County Coastal Cleanup, Saturday, September 19, 2009, 8:00 AM till 2:00 PM, Bougainvilla Parking  Lot (Assistant Town Manager Olinzock)

f.    Commission approval of special event permit application for Athena By The Seas “Wine and Food Festival” event, Saturday, July 4, 2009, 8:00 AM till Sunday, July 5, 2009, 11:00 PM (Assistant Town Manager Olinzock)

BC- The Marchelos brothers are testing the waters with their request for a 2 day event…to start after the Town event on the 4th and later on the next day…The odds…with the “gang of 3” not good..sadly for the Town and the tourists…

The real eye opener included in the special permit…and we hear also included in the commission directed noise decibel meter reading going on and all weekly special events…is the following that was …NEVER APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION…

‘Unless waived by the Town Commission, to ensure code compliance, Town Administration will authorize additional hours to Town staff and the applicant will accordingly provide reimbursement to the Town for this presence’….WOW!…The businesses will pay the overtime of Town staff to make sure they are complying with the ordinances for a head count and noise levels…on top of the expected McIntee strong-arm  “lock box” for using the Town streets…kiss outdoor events goodbye!…YIKES!…

g.    Commission approval of special event application for the Stamper Deluca wedding, Saturday, July 11, 2009, 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM (Assistant Town Manager Olinzock)

h.    Commission approval of special event application for the Lauren Katzenstein Celebration Ride 2009, Sunday, June 28, 2009, 7:30 AM till 2:00 PM (Assistant Town Manager Olinzock)

13.    RESOLUTION – “Public Comments”

a.     Resolution 2009-14: A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF LAUDERDALE-BY-THE-SEA, FLORIDA, ADOPTING AND PROVIDING FOR AN AUTOMATIC ANNUAL INCREASE IN RATES ON PARKING FEE SCHEDULE

BC- a little housecleaning for an oversight..but the “Gang of 3” still kept the absurd $20 annual beach parking fee for their CIC pals!…

14.    QUASI JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARINGS

15.    OLD BUSINESS

a.    Discussion and/or action regarding Kite Surfing (Vice Mayor McIntee) This item was deferred at the April 28, 2009 Commission meeting

BC- Expect the room to be full once again with the kite surfers…We hear the Rick Iossi who came to the podium on 4/28/09 (previous post LBTS agenda/ meetings cat.)…has sent the Town and Commissioners a proposal for what the kite surfers offer…along with designated areas…and perhaps future events…also in the backup is a memo from Weiss, Serota…Harlene Kennedy Esq. on the regulations…it states that various provisions of the Fl. statutes and Fl. admin. code impact the use of State property but do not conclusively permit or prohibit local regulation of kiteboarding. A summary of the pertinent provisions is attached in exhibit A…As the state has retained authority over the beach property, we have contacted the state to obtain preliminary approval of this regulation. We have not yet received a reply and will follow up unless you advise to the contrary….As previously discussed, the Town may not regulate the activity to the detriment of non- residents. The Town must have a rational municipal purpose for this regulation, such as safety measures. If the kiteboarding activity is interfering with traditional or protected uses, this interference may also be the basis fro the regulation…Please provides input for draft ordinance purpose…We will prepare a draft provision to submit for State approval…Regulation of matters to consider…Fee to be charged/Competence of participant to be measured/regulation of hours and/ Engaging a private firm to coordinate those efforts

b.    Selection of winner of the El Mar Drive Design Project as per presentation at the 4/14/09 Commission meeting (Mayor Minnet)

BC- The presentation was on 4/14/09…delays were an embarrassment …and at the last meeting it was decided that each Comm. would provide the Town Manager with their picks in order to finally present the awards to the A.I. students …who will be in attendance…

c.    Discussion and/or action for an Ordinance to ban “totters” from prowling the streets of town stealing valuable recycling material from the refuse collector (Commissioner Dodd) Deferred at the May 12, 2009 Commission meeting by Commissioner Dodd

BC- This was Comm. Dodd’s item at the 5/12/09 meeting …to cut down on the scavengers who troll the streets for recyclable materials etc…The question was if materials left in the Right- of- Way could be regulated in who could pick it up…and it can be…Interesting note…VM McIntee was opposed to regulating…which was a shocker since he is all about safety in the neighborhoods from those trolling the streets…Also mentioned were 2 Town residents that “dumpster dive”…Perhaps the Town can provide Town dumpster diving permits…at $20 annually? (just joking!)…

d.    Discussion and/or action concerning RFP’s and annual renewable contracts over $15,000.  Progress update from March 10th request (Commissioner Dodd)

BC- Comm. Dodd made a simple request quite a few times for the Town to provide a list of RFPs over $15,000 so that the Commission would know what was coming up throughout the year and the dollar amount…Sounded simple for the Administration must have some yearly list of such especially when they plan their budget year…Instead what was provided is an inferior useless list as far back as 2003…and incomplete..no BSO RFP…no parking RFP…..and no dollar amounts…

e.    Discussion and/or action by Town Commission regarding the selections of Town Banners (Assistant Town Manager Olinzock)

BC- the Commission turned over their choices to the Town Manger…for these new banners…McIntee- Furth-Domin- Rest. area/Domin- lodging/Domin-dining…Dodd Furth-Domin/ Jody McClean/Pat Anderson….Minnet Jody McClean/Pat Anderson/ Marilyn Carr….Silverstone Furth-Domin….Clottey Domin/Carr/ Anderson…

The Municipal Parking banners are up on A1A by the lot and on Bougainvilla by the former Tedesco restaurant…

Once again we paid $12,000 last year for the banners now up!…

16.    NEW BUSINESS

a.    Discussion and/or action regarding donations (Commissioner Dodd)

BC- This has to do with this writer…whose family tried to donate the new pavilion clock…and was told by the Town I could make a donation to the General Fund…even after Comm. Silverstone said he did not want an individual donation  with a plaque (it was from my family and the offer pointed out no plaque was wanted)…furthermore after this was turned down Assist. Olinzock said a specified donation could not be made…I was taken aback and inquired upon the donation I made to the town last year fro Sunshine education…I have received n e-mail that no such information was found…I sent the Town Clerk an e-mail with the date  the donation was accepted and acknowledged by the Town for the use of Sunshine education and was shown in the minutes…a letter was presented with the intended use as well…So how was that donation used?…

b.    Discussion and/or action regarding holding a single August Commission meeting (Commissioner Dodd)

BC- Comm. Dodd wants to get some work done in August…

c.    Discussion and/or action amending Town code regulations for owners of private property, not adjacent to public right of way, to allow for less restrictive outdoor seating provisions (Commissioner Silverstone)

BC- This is a strange one…and has to do with requirements of the sidewalk cafe’s …the example used is Pa De Gennaro’s and the Noodle Box…OOPS!…The Noodle Box has been closed for some months now…The jest of it is that event though the cafe’s are on private property they must still be roped off …What’s the deal Jimmy?…

d.    Discussion and/or action between County Building Department and Town Building Department (Vice Mayor McIntee)

BC- no backup provided…

e.    Discussion regarding the Town’s financial situation with future outlook (Vice Mayor McIntee)

BC- no backup provided…get ready for more “In the black”statements…

f.    Discussion on presentation of life saving awards to those who assisted in rescue of drowning swimmers last weekend (Commissioner Clottey)

BC- This will be dropped at the start due to the presentations…

17.    TOWN ATTORNEY REPORT

a.    Notice of a shade session to obtain the Town Commission’s advice on potential settlement negotiations and strategy related to litigation expenditures in the matters of Coastal Arms, Inc. v Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea; James Edmondson v. Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea; The Palm Yacht & Beach Club, Inc. v. Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea; and Delrado, Inc. d/b/a El Dorado Club v. Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea, pursuant to Section 286.011(8), Florida Statutes.

BC- see previous posts scoops cat…..

more to come….overviews after the marathon….on your mark…get set….

Post Division

Here’s The Scoop……KICKED TO THE CURB OR CAT GOT OUT OF THE BAG?…

May 23, 2009 by Barbara

THE LAST ONE’S OUT ?…

Dear Readers…The Palm Club was promised sewers…both by Pompano Beach and LBTS…and depending on who you speak to…it would be done under the annexation agreement along with their neighbors using septic and living on public streets or it would be done for the “greater good” along with the other private road Sunset Lane …due to, some say, the potential environmental hazard they posed for the Town if left in place….

As the Palm Club waited its turn and watched its neighbors including Sunset Lane,  the “cat got out of the bag” and was heard by those in the dark concerning Palm Club’s “horizontal co-op/condo” status…until outgoing Mayor Parker said he had just become aware of its “status” when he had gone to Palm Club to see about purchasing a property there…Residents of the Palm Club and others involved in the annexation agreement said Mayor Parker absolutely knew from the get-go and he was giving Palm Club payback for not backing him to make another run for Mayor…Whichever was true…this news became a hot potato in the next election…pitting those who  wanted to honor the agreement, and hung their hats on the environmental issue vs. those who lived in condos such as Sea Ranch Club, who were vehemently against using taxpayer monies on a private property…And when Sunset Lane was brought up as the reason to go forward with Palm Club…the response coming from these “vertical” condos was “make them pay it back!”…..Readers will recall in the Sausage Series (cat.) the recounting of the campaign for CIC candidates and the McIntee-MacMillan push for the sewers…trying to make the CIC candidates change their stance and back them…While Peanuts Wick happily “flip-flopped” as he was counseled by the M & Ms…Candidates Clottey and Dodd stood their ground opposing it….Readers will also recall that then- Comm. McIntee did a 180 at a debate practice night once he saw that the votes against the sewers would give the CIC in the win from SRC ….far outnumbering Palm Club’s votes….Recently Vice- Mayor McIntee gave the Palm Club another dose of “pulling the rug out” from underneath them with his P.R. stunt of saying he thought they qualified for the Shovel Ready Stimulus Program being offered from the Federal Government…conveniently leaving out the fact that Palm Club was a private property (“details” he said)…Eventually it went the way most thought it would…We hear Congressman Klein said the fund could not be for a private property (hearsay)…All the while the Town was assisting Palm Club with VM McIntee…….the Town knew Palm Club was preparing to follow through on their Bert J. Harris suit…with boxes of public records requests being produced in Town Hall…resulting in a double standard of the Town’s actions…when compared to the Marchelos brothers and the Town’s refusal to speak to them, much less help them in any capacity!…

Count III of the May 19,2009 Palm Club complaint deals with the sewers….

Public record…also to be discussed in a “shade session” on May 26,2009 with the Town Atty. and the Commission…

Excerpts and description of the sections of the complaint…

COUNT III

Specific Performance Of Annexation Agreement With Regard To Sewer Installation

The Palm Club re-alleges paragraphs 1-13…(same as previous post for property/heights)….This is an action for specific performance of a written contract to install sewers with a value in excess of $15,000, located in Broward County, Fl….Under the Annexation Agreement , the Town and SBCA (South Beach Civic Assoc) acknowledged that: There will be excess revenues generated from real and personal property located within the Intracoastal/Beach Area including ad valorem taxes, franchise , utility or other fees, or special assessments or service charges net of cost and expenses of the Town in providing municipal services to the Intracoastal/ Beach Area. Consistent with its legal authority to do so, the Town agrees that, for a period of no less than ten years, such excess revenues will be expended upon capital improvements to be provided within the Intracoastal/Beach Area…Anticipated capital improvements include, but are not limited to, sanitary sewers, including mains, laterals and points of connections to private property….Annex. Agreement paragraph 11 also provides the Town acknowledges that SBCA is relying upon Town’s representatives as to its authority to enter into and perform its obligations under this agreement…in furtherance of its obligations under the Annex. Agreement , the Town adopted Town Resolution 2005-06…Annex. Agreement , adopted in Town Resolution 2000-1458 and further implemented through Town Res. 2005-06 is a valid agreement between Town and SBCA, that was intended to benefit Palm Club among other entities and persons…Town Res. 2005-06 provides that the Town was “authorizing and directing the appropriate town officials to include the Sunset Lane and Palm Club Drive in the Town’s pending sewer improvement project” through the adoption of Town Res. 2005-06…intended to implement the Intracoastal/Beach Area Capital Improvement Program that upon information and belief included installation of sanitary sewers on Palm Club Drive within the Home Property….Town expressly contemplated cessation of use of septic tanks in the areas that would be connected to the sanitary system…In reliance on Town Res. 2005-06 Palm Club continued to rely on the applicable provisions of the Annex. Agreement and the Town’s repeated representations that the sewer lines were to be constructed on Pal Club Drive with the Home Property ….The town put the sewers in on Sunset Lane …Sunset Lane was annexed in at the same time…Sunset Lane is a private road with private residences….Pursuant to the Annex. Agreement  and in addition to Sunset Lane the Town put sewers in all the residences and real property in the Intracoastal/ Beach Area/annexed area ecept for Pal Club Drive and the residences on the Home Property…Pursuant to the Annex. Agreement the Town is obligated to install sanitary sewers on Palm Club Drive  and within the Home Property, to which the residents of Palm Club will hook- up their single-family homes….Upon information and belief the Town already incurred expenses and began to perform under its obligations relating to the installation of the sanitary sewers for Palm Club, including but not limited to already having ordered and received the 60% and 90% engineering plans in preparation for beginning the installation of the sewers that were promised…Furthermore  upon information and belief the Town secured funding to complete the installation of such sewers…Notwithstanding the foregoing, in May of 2008, the Town adopted Res. 2008-14…provides that Res. 2005-06 is hereby amended to omit all references to Palm Club Drive…By its adoption the Town determined that it will not install sewers in Palm Club…By the adoption of Res. 2008-14, the Town has confirmed the Town’s breach of the Annex. Agreement…SBCA and Palm Club have to date fully performed their obligations under the agreement…If court was to award compensatory damages to palm Club for Town’s breach of Annex. Agreement, such damages would be inadequate to afford complete justice between parties, because no amount of damages will result in the Town itself performing its obligations under the Annex. Agreement…A judgment against the Town for specific performance of the Annex. Agreement is appropriate because damages would be adequate to compensate Palm Club for the Town’s breach of the Annex. Agreement…the Plaintiff Palm Club respectfully demands judgment the Town of LBTS be required to perform its obligation under Annex. Agreement and install sewers along Palm Club and within Home Property…that Palm Club recover costs pursuant to Fl. Statute…and Court grant such other and further relief in favor of  Palm Club as the Court deems appropriate and just…

Count IV

Breach Of Annexation Agreement With Regard To Sewers Installation

This action seeking damages in excess of $15,000, and is pleaded in alternative to Count III…As result of  Town Resolution 2008-14, Town breached the Annex. Agreement….Upon information and belief, if Palm Club is required to perform the Town’s obligations itself, it will cost Palm Club in excess of $3,350,000 to install sanitary sewers along Palm Club Drive and within the Home Property…As such, Palm Club has been damaged as a result of the Town’s failure to install sewers the Town represented it would install in an amount necessary to install sewers to provide service to its residents…Wherefore the Plaintiff Palm Club respectfully demands judgment for damages against Defendent, Town of LBTS including all expenses of Palm Club to install sewers and that Palm Club recover costs pursuant to Fl. Statute…and Court grant such other and further relief in favor of  Palm Club as the Court deems appropriate and just…

Count VII…Declaratory Relief With Regard To Sewer Installation…

Equal Protection….

The Town has installed sanitary sewer improvements for private residences on Sunset Lane …cost at least $750,000,….for a significantly lower number of Town residents and taxpayers than number residing in Palm Club….the Home Property  is only real property in Intracoastal/Beach Area /annexed area of the Town on which the Town has not installed sewers…Palm Club has an actual, practical, present, need for declaration as to whether the Town’s adoption of Resolution 2008-14 constitutes unequal and inequitable treatment of Palm Club as compared to the other property owners and residents in the Intracoastal/ Beach Area/ annexed area and the Town in violation of the Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitutions of the State of Fl. and the U.S…and a need for declaration as to whether the Town’s refusal to abide by its agreement constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitutions of the State of Fl. and the U.S….Palm Club and the Town have antagonistic and adverse interests  in the subject matter of the above-set forth controversies….The antagonistic and adverse interests relative to the above-set forth controversies are all before this Court…Palm Club does not have an adequate legal remedy with respect to the above-set forth controversies….Palm Club reserves any and all rights it has to seek supplementary relief as a result of any declaration made by this Court pursuant to Fl. Statute…

BC- So…. the “horizontal co-op/condo” we have used to explain Palm Club’s status is now to be referred as the “Home Property”….and the Palm Club is seeking what they say is equal treatment in the Intracoastal/Beach Area…. ..asking the Town to abide by the annexation agreement with the SBCA who represented the whole Intracoastal/Beach Area and agreed to sewers for all….

more to come….

Post Division

Here’s The Scoop….What’s The Game Plan?…..

May 22, 2009 by Barbara

LBTS VS BERT J HARRIS………..VESTED RIGHTS….

Dear Readers,

What’s the “game plan”?…We ponder about the strategy that is being tossed around at the Town law firm of  Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza Cole & Boniske, P.L. ……now that we are faced with four properties making good on their intentions and delivering their Bert J. Harris lawsuits to the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial circuit in and for Broward County on May 19th ,2009…Palm Club-Case # 09028548/Coastal Arms Case # 09028558/ Del Rado Inc d/b/a El dorado Cub- Case # 09028554/ James Edmondson (Sea Watch Restaurant) Case # 09028566… All are represented by Ruden McClosky Smith Schuster & Russell PA…..

http://www.wsh-law.com/

http://www.ruden.com/

On the agenda for the May 26,2009 Commission meeting …is the following…

17.    TOWN ATTORNEY REPORT

a.    Notice of a shade session to obtain the Town Commission’s advice on potential settlement negotiations and strategy related to litigation expenditures in the matters of Coastal Arms, Inc. v Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea; James Edmondson v. Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea; The Palm Yacht & Beach Club, Inc. v. Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea; and Delrado, Inc. d/b/a El Dorado Club v. Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea, pursuant to Section 286.011(8), Florida Statutes.

BC- We do know that the Commissioners were each given a copy of the complaints and were contacted by the Town Attorney Susan Trevarthen….They will be able to discuss what the options are in this shade session…but we are told they are not allowed to divulge what they discuss,in this closed door session and the content will not be available to the public until after the litigation has been resolved..

There are many ways this can go and you can count on it being the number one topic of numerous newspaper articles and editorials going forth…It could very well be the deciding factor for who is sitting on the dais in 2010… ….

The complaints…which are all public record…are the same for Bert J. Harris …(The Palm Club includes additional Counts regarding their sewers)…..

Excerpts and description of filed complaint…from one Plaintiff…..

Palm Club…gives an account of the annexation agreement, what was allowed under unincorporated Broward County, and that they have exhausted all administrative procedures and/or remedies….Count I the Bert J. Harris Claim…says this is an action for compensation under Bert J. Harris …Palm Club is seeking in excess of $15,000, exclusive of interest, costs and attorney’s fee….more on the annexation agreement…the applicable land use and zoning  (RM-25) that was in effect at the time…the May 24,2005 Resolution 2005-08…”zoning in process”…a moratorium on development ….April 11,2006 Resolution 2006-08 which directed the Town Clerk to deliver a copy of the Town Charter  reflecting an amendment initiated by referendum and passed through a general election vote on March 14,2006 to the Fl. Sec. of  State…the Height Amendment inordinately burdens , restricts and limits Palm Club’s “existing use” of Club property and/or Palm Club’s vested rights to a specific use of the Club Property….Prior to the institution of zoning- in- progress , Palm Club received offers of purchase for a development of a multi-story project…prior to this suit, Palm Club complied with all pre-suit requirements as prescribed by state statute…submitted  their claim with a bona fide valid appraisal…Although the height amendment did not become a part of the Town’s Charter until March, 2006, Palm Club “conservatively” estimated it “lost” the right to develop to 15 stories upon adoption of a zoning in progress on May 24,2005….The Town sought an advisory opinion from Fl. Atty. General (without notifying Palm Club) on or about July 20,2006…Atty. General issued an opinion that the height amendment was government action…despite the opinion on August 2,2006 the Town filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that height amendment was a charter amendment initiated by referendum of voters and as such is not “action of a government entity” within Bert J. Harris Act….

On or about November 16,2006, the Town provided Palm Club with a response purporting to be an offer of settlement in accordance with Fl. statute ..offered no changes to the Town’s actions

BC- What kind of purported settlement?…

In the November response letter , the Town asserted Palm Club’s claim was not ripe for ajudication because they (PC) had not been denied a development order of permit for development of property…and it would not be ripe until the Delaratory Action was resolved….February 2,2007 the Court entered an order granting Defendent’s (Town) motion to dismiss the complaint in the Declatory Action…February 20, 2007 the Town filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint or, in the Alternative for entry of final appealable order…Town filed Amended Complaint on May 2, 2007…March 12, 2007 and within one year of effective date of the Resolution 2006-08 and the Height Amendment Palm Club submitted a second claim under Bert J. Harris Act…along with bona fide appraisal…

On or about August 17, 2007, The Town provided Palm Club with a response to the Palm Club’s second notice of claim, purporting to be an offer of settlement in accordance to Fl. Statute…with no offer to make changes to Town’s action…

BC- A second purported settlement offer?…

On or about May of 2008 the Town Atty. responsible for filing the Declaratory Action (Jim Cherof) was replaced…Shortly after the new Town Atty. ( Dan Abbott) took office, the Town voluntarily dismissed the Town’s Amended Complaint on June 9, 2008 and the Court entered in a Final Order of Dismissal of the Town’s Declaratory Action on June 11,2008..

BC- at the May 27,2008 Regular Commission meeting… (previous post)…

’16. Town Atty. Report

Bert J Harris ….Mr Abbott gave history of previous Town Atty….case was dismissed by judge who asked for an advisory claim…previous Town Atty…refiled…Mr Abbott felt to do so would bring the same dismissal…and waste taxpayers money for his services…asked to dismiss lawsuit….passes 5-0…’

BC-Was this the right move?…Note- Atty. Abbott was replaced with  Atty. Trevarthen, because we were told she is a  land use expert….which we were in need of…we were told…a little pre-planning for Bert J Harris ….perhaps?…

Pursuant to Fl. Statute Palm Club rejected the Town’s purported settlement offers and ripeness decisions  and now seeks compensation in this court….

As a direct result of the actions described above to enact the zoning- in- progress and /or Height Amendment Palm Club is unable to attain its reasonable, investment backed expectations it would have realized through sale and/or development of Club Property….causing permanent, substantial and measurable loss in their fair market value of the Club Property…they want atty fees and costs recovered from the Town…and demand a jury trial….

VESTED RIGHTS….(also being used by plaintiffs in their complaint)……

When this writer first became involved in Town, joining the P.& Z Board, I read the Land Use Development that was before the previous commission…It contained a section on “vested rights”…that just may allow the Town staff to decide not to fight and to allow the properties in question to do as they are asserting are their vested rights. After going to the podium and speaking on this multiple times, bringing it up to various commissioners and staff, it fell on deaf ears. The Land Use Development was finally passed and it includes the “vested rights” still. Perhaps this will be the ultimate ending of the Bert J. Harris lawsuits when all is said and done….HMMMM……..

OF NOTE # 5…(5)   Nothing in this section prohibits the Town staff from reconsidering and reversing a denial of a vested rights application at any time prior to the start of the hearing before the hearing officer….

BC- could this be the “safety clause” that allows the Town on its own to say…”never mind”?….

Sec. 30-12.  Vested rights determinations.
The Town recognizes that certain land development rights of property owners may be vested with respect to approved land uses, density or intensity of development and/or staging or phasing of development. Any person claiming vested rights to develop property shall make application for a vested rights determination.
(1)   The Town Manager or his or her designee shall review the application and any supporting documents and shall consult with other staff and the Attorney’s Office. Within 45 days after the receipt of a complete and sufficient application, the Town Manager or his or her designee shall either grant the application for vested rights or respond to the applicant in writing the reason or reasons for denial. The decision shall be mailed by U.S. Mail to the address indicated on the application, return receipt requested.
(2)   If the applicant disagrees with the determination of the Town Manager, he or she may appeal the decision of the staff by notifying the Town in writing that he or she is appealing the decision. The notification shall be received by the Town no later than 30 days after the Town “renders” his or her decision on the application. If the notification is not received within 30 days after rendition of the decision, the applicant is deemed to have waived his or her right to challenge the decision. For the purposes of this section, the term “renders” means the date the applicant initials or otherwise indicates receipt of the decision. However, in the event the decision is not accepted or is returned, the term “renders” means ten calendar days after the date the decision was mailed.
(3)   Upon receipt by the Town of a timely notice of appeal, the appeal shall be assigned to a hearing officer. The procedures for conducting hearings shall be approved by a Resolution of the Town Commission. The hearing shall be set for no later than 60 days from the date of the notice of appeal unless an extension of time is requested or agreed to by the applicant.
(4)   The Town Attorney shall represent the Town in the administrative hearing. The hearing officer shall determine whether vested rights have been created pursuant to the provisions set forth within this section, applicable statutes, or established case law and shall determine whether any time limitation is applicable to such vested rights.
(5)   Nothing in this section prohibits the Town staff from reconsidering and reversing a denial of a vested rights application at any time prior to the start of the hearing before the hearing officer.
(6)   The hearing officer shall within 45 days of the hearing issue a proposed order which shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the claim of vested rights.
(7)   The Town Commissioners shall within thirty (30) days of receipt of the proposed order issue its determination which shall be in the form of a resolution.
(Ord. No. 2007-14, § 2(Exh. A), 9-25-07; Ord. No. 2007-14, § 2(Exh. A), 9-25-07)

http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=14431&sid=9

more to come……

Post Division

Here’s The Scoop…Knock…Knock…Who’s There ?…

May 22, 2009 by Barbara

IT’S BERT J. HARRIS….ABOUT THOSE HEIGHTS…..THEY’RE AN “INORDINATE BURDEN”…

BERT J.HARRIS?…..

‘70.001  Private property rights protection.

(1)  This act may be cited as the “Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act.” The Legislature recognizes that some laws, regulations, and ordinances of the state and political entities in the state, as applied, may inordinately burden, restrict, or limit private property rights without amounting to a taking under the State Constitution or the United States Constitution. The Legislature determines that there is an important state interest in protecting the interests of private property owners from such inordinate burdens. Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature that, as a separate and distinct cause of action from the law of takings, the Legislature herein provides for relief, or payment of compensation, when a new law, rule, regulation, or ordinance of the state or a political entity in the state, as applied, unfairly affects real property.

(2)  When a specific action of a governmental entity has inordinately burdened an existing use of real property or a vested right to a specific use of real property, the property owner of that real property is entitled to relief, which may include compensation for the actual loss to the fair market value of the real property caused by the action of government, as provided in this section.

(3)  For purposes of this section:

(a)  The existence of a “vested right” is to be determined by applying the principles of equitable estoppel or substantive due process under the common law or by applying the statutory law of this state.

(b)  The term “existing use” means an actual, present use or activity on the real property, including periods of inactivity which are normally associated with, or are incidental to, the nature or type of use or activity or such reasonably foreseeable, nonspeculative land uses which are suitable for the subject real property and compatible with adjacent land uses and which have created an existing fair market value in the property greater than the fair market value of the actual, present use or activity on the real property.

Full text link below….

http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_Mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0070/Sec001.htm&StatuteYear=2004

SOME BACKGROUND……THE BERT J. HARRIS “JOURNEY”…..

On February 10,2009 the LBTS  Commissioners were provided in their backup materials…the “historical” materials for heights.. the past ordinances…referendums…petitions…court case…..memos.. …in order to discuss the new referendum for heights that will be coming your way yet again in March 2010…

IT CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING….

HEIGHT…3B….

Planning and Zoning …heights….

Previous Referendum…

A True Copy ….Court Case- Jerome McIntee and the LBTS-CIC VS Town of LBTS Case 05 18390 (Caca) 11 Goldstein…

The  CIC petition to amend the Town Charter….

Excerpt….

A CHARTER AMENDMENT REFINING AND STRENGTHENING THE 3-OVER-1-STORY HEIGHT LIMIT, EXTENDING THAT PROTECTION TOWN-WIDE, AND PROVIDING
FOR VOTER CONTROL OVER BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
WHEREAS, Chapter 166, Florida Statutes., as amended, provides a methodology of charter amendments supplementary to and not in conflict with the Charter of the Town of Lauderdale-by-the-Sea (“Town”); and,
WHEREAS, Chapter 166, F.S., as amended, provides that such charter amendment may be submitted by electors of a municipality, by a petition signed by 10 percent of the registered electors as of the last preceding municipal general election; to referendum at the next general election held in the municipality or at a special election; and
WHEREAS, the present Town Charter was amended by popular referendum in 1998 to provide a “3-over-1-story” height limit for new building construction within the boundaries of the Town at that time; and
WHEREAS, voters of the Town were assured by an elected official of the Town prior to that referendum that its “primary purpose” was “taking away the power the Town Commission presently has to regulate building heights and giving that power directly to the Town’s residents” and;
WHEREAS, voters of the Town were assured by the same elected official, prior to that referendum, that “if [the] Charter Amendment passes, the Town Commission will no longer have the power to raise building height limits in Town without first obtaining voter approval in a town-wide referendum”; and
WHEREAS, the 1998 charter amendment has proven inadequate in that it fails to provide for construction of simple 3-story buildings (as well as 3-over-1-story buildings) in coastal construction zones, and also in that, according subsequently to the same elected official, by virtue of that very charter amendment, the Town Commission was actually granted the power, to raise the height limit in the Town’s key seaside zoning district, without voter approval, overturning an existing 3-story height limit established under a long-standing “electoral” zoning ordinance, also passed by popular referendum following a citizens initiative in 1973; and
WHEREAS, Section 70.001, Florida Statutes, makes no reference to relief from actions by citizen voters themselves, through amendments of their municipal charter (as separate and distinct from “laws, regulations and ordinances of the state and political entities of the state” or “specific actions of a governmental entity,”) and does not, therefore, appear to constrain citizen voters from acting to protect their environment and prevent barrier-island overpopulation, traffic congestion, etc., through land-use provisions of their municipal charter; and
WHEREAS, registered voters of the annexed area have evidenced a desire – and many have expressly confirmed that desire by their signatures below – to enjoy the same building height-limit protection currently enjoyed by residents of the Town within its pre-annexation borders; and
WHEREAS, there is no apparent legal impediment to charter amendment by voters, as provided in Section 166, Florida Statutes, in lieu of an enabling ordinance as specified in Chapter 99-465 of the Laws of Florida, or to the subsequent extension, to the area annexed to the Town in 2001, of the 3-over-1-story town-wide height limit established in 1998, and as amended by the following proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, voters residing in residential areas in both parts of the Town have evidenced a desire – and many have expressly confirmed that desire by their signatures below – for protection, in addition to that provided by the 1998 amendment, against any increases in the zoned height limits in their respective residential (R-5, RS-4, RS-5, RD-10, RM-15, RM-16, RM-25 and PUD) zoning districts without prior approval by the voters; and
WHEREAS the undersigned registered voters of the Town have reviewed this proposed amendment, agree that they should do everything possible to insure enactment of a further Charter amendment to guarantee effective height limits on new construction throughout the Town in order to preserve the unique low-profile, non-commercialized, small-town charm that has motivated so many over the years to make Lauderdale-by-the-Sea their home; and therefore that the proposed charter amendment be submitted to registered voters of the Town by referendum at the next municipal general election following verification of required signatures to this Petition;
NOW, THEREFORE, AFFIRMING THE FOREGOING WHEREAS CLAUSES AS TRUE AND CORRECT, BE IT AGREED, PROPOSED AND SUBMITTED BY THE UNDERSIGNED REGISTERED ELECTORS (VOTERS) OF THE TOWN OF LAUDERDALE-BY-THE-SEA, FLORIDA, (TOWN) THAT THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN CHARTER BE SUBMITTED TO A VOTE OF THE ELECTORS OF THE TOWN AT THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION HELD WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY:

Ordinance 399

Ordinance 2005-20

Minutes 2005-20…

Memo explaining Referendum Atty. Jim Cherof

Full text link below….

http://www.lauderdalebythesea-fl.gov/Agendas_Minutes/a3b.pdf.

THE SIDES….FOR AND AGAINST….TO WIN THE VOTES….

March 6, 2006 Town Topics….excerpts…

Town voters face important
issue in March over height
THE HEIGHT ISSUE Town officials urge voters to defeat the proposed height-limit charter
amendment on the March 14 ballot, fearing it could spark costly lawsuits.
Voters must make a very important decision in March about what has
been an emotional issue in this community for decades: the height
of buildings in Town.

When the Town annexed the unincorporated North Beach Area in
October 2001, it promised property owners in that area — in a written
agreement — not to lower their 15-story height limit. The buildings in North
Beach, in fact, range from 2 to 23 stories.
A Town Charter referendum question placed on the March ballot by the
Citizens Initiative Committee, if adopted, would reduce the 15-story
height limit to four stories. While this would make the Town’s height limit
consistent, the Town Commission and Town Attorney each believe that
taking away the property rights of residents in that area would expose the
Town to serious legal liability in court. If so, the Town Manager is concerned
the financial ramifications would be extremely damaging to the Town’s budget.
Under Florida law, the property rights of individuals are protected under
the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act, which

allows any aggrieved property owner who demonstrates that governmental

action “inordinately burdens” their property rights to sue the Town for monetary damages.

Town Attorney James Cherof has told the Commission
he believes the Bert J. Harris Act would apply to
ordinances adopted by charter referendum, exposing the
Town to liability. It is estimated that the Town’s cost to
defend a lawsuit brought by one North Beach plaintiff
would exceed $100,000, which could double if the Town
were required to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees and court
costs. A Florida court could also award a plaintiff
millions in lost property value damages.
In a letter to the Town, the Coastal Arms, a North
Beach co-op, stated its intention to take whatever
means are necessary to protect its legal rights.
In a 1997 case out of West Palm Beach (City of
West Palm Beach vs. Fidelity Federal Savings Bank of
Florida), a Palm Beach Circuit Court judge, referring to
the Florida Constitution, ruled a referendum question
initiated by residents did not absolve the city from legal
liability under the Bert J. Harris Act. The case is not
legally binding on the Town, but the judge’s reasoning in
the ruling is very clear.
“All political power is inherent in the people,” the
ruling stated. “Our theory of government is that the
power flows from the people and in our form of government,
the way in which laws are enacted, whether it be
in a town meeting or whether it be by referendum or in
some representative form of government doesn’t change
the fact that the legislation is state action (or in this
case), city action.”
November referendum
The Town has placed its own height referendum on
the ballot for voters to decide in November. The Town’s
referendum is intended to keep the Town out of court by
preserving the legal rights of property owners in the
North Beach Area while giving the Town much more
authority to control setbacks, landscaping and public
access to the beach.

TOPICS BALLOT ISSUE
Barring an appeal, the Town of
Lauderdale-By-The-Sea has
already lost one lawsuit related to
the issue of height restrictions in
the North Beach Area.
The Town Commission last
May 10th adopted a motion
“declaring a zoning in progress”
and asked its Town Attorney to
draft an ordinance imposing a six month
moratorium on buildings
that exceeded the Town’s 44-foot
height limit.
The Sea Colony Condominium,
1400 S. Ocean Blvd.,
submitted a site review plan to
construct a 15-story, high-rise
residential condominium on May
23, the day before the Town
Commission formally adopted a
resolution establishing the moratorium.
The Town believed its earlier
motion declaring zoning in
progress was sufficient cause not
to process Sea Colony’s site
review application, but a judge
disagreed.
Broward Circuit Court Judge
Robert Andrews ordered the
Town on Jan. 31 to process the
application, ruling that the Sea
Colony’s site
review plan was
submitted on
May 23, a day
before the Town
formally established
its building moratorium.
The Sea Colony, which is
represented by Ruden,
McClosky, Smith, Schuster &
Russell, a Fort Lauderdale law
firm, filed suit against the Town on
Sept. 22nd.
“While the Town makes a
strong argument for zoning in
progress, and that the Town
Commission adopted a motion on
May 10, 2005 declaring a zoning
in progress, it fails to address the
fact that Resolution 2005-08
specifically provides that “no
application for development or
redevelopment activity within the
study area shall be accepted or
processed by the Town following
the date of adoption of this
Resolution during the study
period, unless the application
was filed prior to the adoption
date of this resolution,” Judge
Andrews stated in his order.
In the litigation, Sea Colony
attorneys seized on a letter
submitted to Judge Andrews by
CIC leader Jerry McIntee in
which McIntee criticized the
Town’s efforts to declare zoning in
progress.
While difficult to gauge the
effect on the outcome of the case,
the Town Attorney earlier advised
the Town Manager that “by
attacking the Town, the CIC
played right into the hands of the
developer. The judge could easily
conclude from the CIC letter that
citizens of the Town agreed with
the Plaintiff” .

full text link below…

March 2006…Town Topics..

http://www.lauderdalebythesea-fl.gov/town/town-topics/TT-Mar-06.pdf.

February  2006…Town Topics

http://www.lauderdalebythesea-fl.gov/town/town-topics/TT-Feb-06.pdf.

STATE OF FLORIDA WEIGHS IN…..

July  2006…Atty General opinion

Excerpt…

In sum, it is my opinion that an amendment to a town charter proposed and approved pursuant to section 166.031(1), Florida Statutes, does constitute “action of a governmental entity” as that term is defined and used in the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act. In addition, any new rules, regulations, or ordinances adopted by the town to effectuate the terms of the amendment to the charter would also constitute “action of a governmental entity” as that term is defined and used in the act. I note that the authority to determine whether such action gives rise to a claim under the act is expressly vested in the judicial branch.[8]

Sincerely,

Charlie Crist
Attorney General
full text link below….

http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/6D6C72F94F019E07852571B1006A8F28

GETTING THE WORD OUT…….

Sept. 2006……Royal Coast Newsletter

http://www.myroyalcoast.com/PDF/RC-NBCA-REF.pdf.

John Thompson wrote on Oct. 16 2006….countering the SBCA claims……’ THE GREAT SBCA-BOD/PROFITEER/DEVELOPER SCAM EXPOSED! ‘

including this excerpt

‘So attorney Delegal got busy and, as she later told the LBTS Commission, helped to draft a bill that the Florida Legislature eventually passed as Special Law 99-465, saying that the “Intracoastal/beach area,” following annexation, would keep their 15-story height limit on new construction “until further amended by ordinance of the Town.”’

Mr. Thompson pointed out the above inclusion …” following annexation, would keep their 15-story height limit on new construction “until further amended by ordinance of the Town.”’ as a pivotal point to bring out…along with the inordinate burden being claimed……He used  the following examples (he has done so many times throughout the years)…If a condominium owner bought at $40,000 and now is able to sell at $200,000-500,000. is that really an inordinate burden?…Also he has often pointed out the the profit of what could be made building lower using Minto in a comparison that he said shows no loss ….in fact just the opposite…

Look for the competing local newspapers representing each side…. for and against …height limitations/ and position on Bert J. Harris & sewers in the Palm Club….to continue in 2009-10  with front page coverage and editorials….as they did in the past…..

This will be discussed at the 5/26/09 Regular Commission meeting by the Town Attorney…with a “shade session” for the Commissioners either to follow or to be agreed upon at a future date….

more to come…much more…..

Post Division

Here’s The Scoop…Two Years Later…LBTS Turtle Workshop Still Gets No Respect…

May 21, 2009 by Barbara

IT’S TOUGH TO BE A TURTLE….

Dear Readers…2 years ago this writer attended the turtle workshop put on courtesy of Broward County in Jarvis Hall…I recall it was not well attended and I was most surprised it was not televised for the residents on the local government channel 78…It was a missed opportunity and one I was sure would be remedied the next time one of these workshops came our way ….On Monday May 18, 2009…they returned , and I fully expected it would be on cable and online, especially with all the recent dais discussions on the lighting problems affecting El Mar Drive and the July 4th Beach Blast Fireworks Display set to go off …But alas, not only was it not put on…the event itself was down to 1 small table of lights…a sharp contrast to the many tables of vendors in the past…

Sadly in attendance, were a handful of residents…5 non-residents…included in these numbers were the local papers..BTSTimes Co-Editors Furth… Judy Vik from the Pompano Pelican and this writer….along with Commissioner Dodd…Comms. Silverstone and Clottey arrived after the event ended at 11:30 and 11:45 respectively along with the Town Manager who arrived somewhere in between the two, again after the program concluded…The largest contingent in the hall were State and  County staff and volunteers from several agencies…

Natural Resource Specialist III  Lou Fisher from the Broward County Environmental Protection and Growth management Department Natural Resources Planning and Management Division welcomed all and introduced the first speaker…

Jeff Howe a Fish and Wildlife Biologist from the U.S. Department of The Interior Fish & Wildlife Service, S. Florida Field Office…gave a power point presentation on the history and challenges facing the sea turtles…including …Pointing out that turtles pre-date dinosaurs…..Modern sea turtles are smaller than their predecessors….They are literally living fossils that spend almost their entire life in the ocean…Females return to the beach to lay eggs on a “small necklace of land” on the S. Florida cost and lay 120-130 eggs per nest….The majority of hatchlings come out at night to go to sea looking for the brightest light to follow to the ocean…There are 5 species …the green turtle is increasing and the loggerhead has declined in nests…A startling photo was show of Destin Florida…with the coastline of beach in the 1960s -70s….contrasted to 30 years later (2004) with a highly developed area and much less beach to nest on…He went on to discuss light pollution…habitat degradation and the effects they have on nesting females…keeping them from returning and causing disorientation…One photo showed a dead turtle clutching her lost eggs (2007)…she was killed by lighting disorientation…Large structures can act as “silhouettes” steering the turtles towards the sea…such as dunes and vegetation….Hatchlings have limited energy reserve for their “frenzy” period…He ended with a data summary from 2006 showing 72,ooo turtles were documented as disoriented….

Jean Higgins from the Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission…..came next to speak about lighting…compliance and a new program that encourages lighting manufacturers to go a through certification process that includes involvement in the review process for all new development…working alongside local code enforcement and local ordinances modeled after state ordinances…especially with keeping light sources that wreak havoc for the turtles off the beach…She spoke of the “Three golden rules”…for lighting low/shielded/long (wave length…referring to wattage…and low height/shielding from the beach/ visible light waves…colors yellow,amber, red…Also discussed at length were types of shields…LED lights such as were installed in Boca Raton…and working with neighboring towns as they look for solutions to their own lighting problems…

Question and answer time followed with Diane Boutin asking about the change in policy of moving turtle nests, a practice used in the past…Ms. Higgins said they no longer do that …too intrusive and they address the lighting instead…Cristie Furth asked about the embedded lighting used in Boca Raton, and if it was used with sidewalks along with bollard lighting…Ms. Higgins said they used to have the bollards but removed them and did not believe they had sidewalks…A volunteer asked about the Fort Lauderdale strip with their poles and Ms. Higgins confirmed their shielding used was louvered and faced the light west although there is a problem with some…Diane Boutin followed up about poles and FPL cobraheads ( the current lights in LBTS) … asking if a solution would be to lower the arm of the light head down the pole…Ms. Higgins said the lowering was a feasible option…and went on to discuss certain problems with FPL and their poles…Marc Furth asked about the LBTS portals which have colored filters over their lights…he heard they were no longer allowed…Ms. Higgins said they found that the filters did not last …and the degridation decreased their effectiveness…This writer asked about the agency’s involvement if there was any, with our town for the El Prado park and parking lot due to the parking lot finished this year…having non-turtle friendly lights…Ms. Higgins was most politically correct and cautious in saying unfortunately they were not involved in the early stages…and they are now working with the town on shielding those lights…( The Town Manager previously quoted $650 ea.)…YIKES!……..Lou Fisher asked about A1A and the DOT after Wilma with retrofitting ..FPL…and the problems found with some “flared” shields…Ms. Higgins responded they are working on it…Mr. Fisher added info on the planning stages for the DOT and changing the law on how much illumination was required for street lighting…Ms. Higgins said it may have stalled…but variances could be used and addressed project by project…as it is now in Vero Beach and Fort Lauderdale…that DOT is being cooperative…The Rep. from Greenlight Go…asked about working on a project and if the FWC “test drive” it…Ms. Higgins said they have three fulltime reviewers …and added in her experience with seeing that the commonly used “paper” review does not always accurately describe the site inspection…and they are now doing finals on projects…on site…which is causing some changes afterward….Crisite Furth spoke about LBTS and El Mar Drive…and asked if they (FWC) were actively involved …Ms. Higgins said they are “actively meeting” on this issue and that “Chuck Collins” met with the Commission…( Comm. Dodd was not aware of it)…Comm. Dodd informed Ms. Higgins of the decision made at the last commission meeting about turning back on some lights for safety…and asked if she would work with the town …Ms. Higgins said yes on an invitational basis….Marc Furth asked about red LED rope lighting for  (as is used around his hotel) for the pavilion…Ms. Higgins answered it could be used under the benches and perhaps up in the eaves..Marc went on to ask “How do you feel about Christmas?”…The audience members replied “We love Christmas, it’s not turtle season”….OOPS!…Marc went for the “save”  to cover his embarrassing query …saying some Christmas lights are up all year..(It didn’t work)…..The Engineer from Greenlight Go asked about fines…Ms. Higgins spoke of working with code enforcement officials addressing problems and citations for non compliance…adding they will do whatever they can to help…A volunteer asked about special permits …events on the beach at night looking for clarification…Ms. Higgins answered with the DEP permits required and local codes…This writer could not resist asking a followup to the volunteer’s…about fireworks off the beach (as the Mc-Furth July 4th committee are going to do)…Ms. Higgins again was politically correct saying it was a “hot topic”…and that it did cause disorientation for the turtles ans cut down on their nesting…statistically shown…

The meeting ended…and afterward as mentioned above Comm. Silverstone arrived at 11:30 although he knew it was from 10-12…and as quickly as he walked in the door he walked out to talk to Marc Furth…Then came Manager Colon who sat down next Comm. Silverstone who had returned after his discussion with Furth…and finally 15 minutes before the end…Comm. Clottey arrived..and then she too immediately walked back outside to talk to Comm. Silverstone for quite a while…

At one point this writer was truly disgusted at observing the unprofessional behavior of the Town Manager…Comm. Dodd sat down to discuss the required invitation for the FWC to assist the town  and she sat looking straight ahead for quite some time, ignoring  Commissioner  Dodd ……It became a war of wills…until the woman talking to Comm. Silverstone said something that broke the ice…they all laughed and then and only then did Town Manager Colon turn to acknowledge Comm. Dodd!…This Manager definitely needs a review!…

The program was over at noon…

.http://myfwc.com/index.aspx

more to come….

Post Division

Here’s The Scoop…..FOLLOWING IN FORT LAUDERDALE’S FOOTSTEPS?…

May 20, 2009 by Barbara

KEEP IT DOWN….BOYS…..”LEGITIMATELY!”…

Dear Readers…some months a go Commissioner Dodd proposed an entertainment overlay district for downtown LBTS……It was shot down by the “Gang of 3″…but it looks like we may end up with the noise control used in the Fort Lauderdale Special entertainment overlay district…HMMM. Maybe the open container law will quickly follow?…

An overview of the May 15,2009 Friday night “Field Trip”…shows some amusing sights and exchanges……It’s like watching a bad home movie or a second rate reality TV show…but starring your LBTS Commission and their “entourage” of members of the Town staff with a few tag- alongs…including BFF McIntee personal  photog Marc Furth…and Aruba Beach Cafe’ head honchos…Peggy Mohler and Guy Contrada (who came with his own decibel meter reader)…….here’s the highlights of those sights and exchanges…although few readings that could actually be heard ( how ironic!) and the agreed upon decision made by the Commission after a suggestion made by Comm. Silverstone at the end of the 45 minute …  360 degree tour that if it was initiated from the dais could have bypassed this whole “fishing” expedition…..

Congregating at the windy beach pavilion 3 out of 4 of the commissioners were on time…Comm. Clottey was late as usual…Comm Dodd and Vice Mayor McIntee worked out the 360 route…with McIntee saying he” wanted out by 9″….They chose different points with several distances…”right on top of the noise…100 ft. and 200 ft.” for the readings…As they walked up Commercial …Marc took pics…Peggy was on the phone…and as they passed Village Grille’s outdoor dining they were “booed”!…PIO Steve d’Oliveira wants to know who the guy is in the black shirt…and Comm. Dodd informs him that he was “Guy from Aruba”…As they headed toward Oriana …Comm. Dodd says” it’s exactly 200 feet” and McIntee says ” Let the record note it was walked of by Commissioner Dodd”….Complaints were ongoing with claims made by the Commission that the level of noise from the Friday night band was not “legitimate”…………”McIntee said “You gotta give it a fair shake, you gotta play the song”…There was laughing …teasing …suggestions jokingly made, such as Jimmy saying to “put on a Led Zepplin DVD”…Peggy made calls and is on camera saying “Stuart, Dave (Gadsby of Village Grille) says he’s at his normal Friday night level”….McIntee wasn’t buying it and was the most vocal in mocking Dave….Commissioner Clottey finally arrives…Comm. Dodd suggests they walk to High Noon…and VM McIntee says “Why don’t we get a legitimate reading here?”…Code Enforcement Officer Kim Wilson says “Yeah, I’d like to get a legitimate reading”…They began walking north stop at the SW corner of Commercial and El Mar Drive… and start across the street heading west on Commercial…McIntee “That’s not a song, They’re playing in slow motion”…Marc Furth chimes in ” Yeah, and they’re gonna play slower now”… As they pass Kilwins Comm. Silverstone jokingly says ” Hey, I, call for a break!”….By the Pier fishing sign McIntee says yet again  ” They’re playing songs in slow motion, they should have played legitimately, this isn’t a fair shake”…and Peggy clearly frustrated saying ” Why don’t we just get a boom box and sit it somewhere and walk 200 feet from it?”…Not long after walking back east on Commercial there’s a shot of Comm. Silverstone giving his fiancee’ a pat on the butt…OOPS!…….Heading north on El Mar Drive to the High Noon…a shot shows the Vice Mayor/Dep. Chief illegally parked his SUV on the west side of El Mar Drive by Country Ham N Eggs…OOPS!…Comm. Silverstone says” it doesn’t seem to be an average Friday night”….Comm. Clottey said “it’s unfortunate (the music being less noisy) because we’ve now recorded it and if they go over it they’ve got a problem”…VM McIntee aske Code Officer Kim Williams about the reading she took the previous weekend, asking her to inform them unofficially for comparison… Kim replies “They weren’t far off from what they are now but the songs right now I agree are a little quieter than they were”…Comm. Clottey wants to know about the what time she was there previously…Kim says she was there about 9 or 120 that they have  more people adding that right there in front of Counry Ham N Eggs she had a reading around “86ish”with not as much wind……tonight it was 83.2…VM McIntee finally does cut to the chase and asks Code Offcier Kim Williams what was the acceptable level at her former job in Fort Lauderdale…Kim responds “For here 95 to 96 decibel reading your safe, anything over that for the residents to avoid the town levels, the town the way they want it to be”…She went on to compare Las Olas being harder to figure out …twice as many people.. Comm. Clottey wanted to know about after 10 …Kim said she would have to look at Fort Lauderdale saying the following…

IMPORTANT….Code Enforcement Officer Kim Williams said ” They (Ft. Laud.) were redoing it (noise ord.) when I left. They revamped theirs and then they changed it because when I left in October they had just made one version of their noise ordinance, started training, then after they started playing with it and they heard that the restaurant owners came out and they all spoke on it they went back and they revised and I want to say they went through two revisions before they came up with their actual one and by the time they finalized it I already left.”…’Anybody can pull that up on Municodes or get a copy”…

Fort Lauderdale Municode..Excert/full text link below….

Chapter 17  NOISE CONTROL*

__________
*Editor’s note:  Ord. No. C-08-37, § 1, adopted July 15, 2008, repealed Ch. 17, in its entirety, which pertained to noise control. Section 2 of said ordinance enacted provisions designated as a new Ch. 17 to read as herein set out. See also the Code Comparative Table.

Sec. 17-6.  Maximum permissible dBA sound levels.
Notwithstanding any other provision in this chapter, it shall be unlawful, except as expressly permitted herein, to cause, allow, or permit the making of any sound which exceeds the limits set forth in this section.
TABLE I
MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVEL LIMITS dBA

TABLE INSET:

USE           TIMES           OUTDOOR           INDOOR
Residential       7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.       60 dBA*
50 dBA       45 dBA
35 dBA
Commercial       24 hours       65 dBA       55 dBA
Industrial       24 hours       75 dBA       65 dBA
*If the residential use is within a commercial, industrial, or mixed use, or within two hundred (200) feet of such use, the outdoor sound level limit is sixty-five (65) dBA between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
(1)   Sound level measurements  shall be taken as follows:
a.   The sound level limit for the complainant’s use shall apply.
b.   Outdoor sound level measurements shall be taken on or within the real property line of the complainant.
c.   Indoor sound level measurements shall apply when the sound source is on or within the same parcel of land as the complainant or when the real property line between the sound source and the complainant is a common wall, floor, or ceiling. Indoor sound level measurements shall be taken within the premises of the complainant.
d.   Three (3) measurements of the normal, usual operation of the sound source under investigation shall be taken. The metric that shall be applied is LMAX. Each of the three (3) measurements shall be no less than thirty (30) seconds in duration, and all three (3) measurements shall be taken within any one-hour period. If the sound source under investigation is of a total duration of less than ninety (90) seconds, one thirty-second measurement shall be sufficient.
(2)   Impulsive sound:
a.   Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily, impulsive sounds which occur ten (10) or more times in any one (1) hour shall not exceed the permissible sound level limits as set forth in Table I, and impulsive sounds which occur less than four (4) times in any one-hour period shall not equal or exceed twenty (20) decibels above the permissible sound level limits as set forth in Table I.
b.   Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. daily, impulsive sounds which occur four (4) or more times in any one (1) hour shall not exceed the permissible sound level limits as set forth in Table I, and impulsive sounds which occur less than four (4) times in any one-hour period shall not equal or exceed twenty (20) decibels above the permissible sound level limits as set forth in Table I.
(3)   Steady pure tones:  If the sound source under investigation is a mechanical device, excluding HVAC equipment on residential property, and is emitting a sound with a steady tonal quality which does not fluctuate more than plus or minus three (3) dBA, the permissible sound level limits in Table I shall be reduced by five (5) dBA.
(Ord. No. C-08-37, § 2, 7-15-08)

Sec. 17-7.  Specific restrictions.
(a)   Amplified sound.  No person shall cause, allow, or permit the operation of any amplified sound device from the following use districts or locations in the following manner:
(1)   Residential use:
a.   Sound shall not be plainly audible for a period of one (1) minute or longer at a distance of twenty-five (25) feet or more when measured from the source property line between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. daily.
b.   Sound shall not be plainly audible for a period of one (1) minute or longer at a distance of fifty (50) feet or more when measured from the source property line between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily.
(2)   Rights-of-way.  Sound shall not be plainly audible at a distance of twenty-five (25) feet or more from a motor vehicle or any other sound source.

ENTERTAINMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT….

(3)   Special entertainment overlay district.  When measured at a distance of five (5) feet from the building, structure or establishment from which the sound is emanating:
a.   Sound shall not exceed:
1.   Eighty-five (85) dBA or ninety-five (95) dBC Monday through Thursday from 12:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. the following day:
2.   Seventy (70) dBA or eighty (80) dBC Monday through Thursday from 12:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
3.   Sixty-five (65) dBA or seventy-five (75) dBC Monday through Thursday from 2:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
b.   Sound shall not exceed:
1.   Eighty-five (85) dBA or ninety-five (95) dBC Friday through Sunday and legal holidays (as provided by state law), from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. the following day:
2.   Seventy (70) dBA or eighty (80) dBC Friday through Sunday and legal holidays (as defined by state law), from 1:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m.
3.   Sixty-five (65) dBA or seventy-five (75) dBC Friday through Sunday and legal holidays (as defined by State law), from 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.’

http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=10787&sid=9

BC- Once again Commissioner Dodd had it right …when he asked for a noise workshop with the restaurants and businesses…HMMM…2 revisions before Ft. Lauderdale’s noise ordinance was finalized….

VM McIntee wanted to know about the warnings and Comm. Clottey…both talking over each other was still “honed in” on after 10 pm…Kim Williams said in LBTS  they always give at least one verbal warning “at least”…they try to “be easier on the residents”…and the report comes for “really offending someone”….Comm. Clottey hearing the music was louder asked for another reading…Kim tried as a plane was heard overhead and a lot of wind…Comm. Silverstone asked “which is louder the airplanes or the music?”…He went on to suggest Kim go out and get readings …then asked when this item was next on the agenda (June 9th)…and it was suggested that Kim do “spot checks” …This reading at this time was 66-67…Kim went on to say she did not mind coming out at different times…diffferent days to do more readings…and assured Comm. Clottey she understood about the after 10 music from 101, saying their inside music carries outside…but informed her that Village Grille and Aruba also have inside music and she (Kim) would be impartial and check them all….VM McIntee said they all agreed to direct her to do as she (Kim) suggested, with no instructions from the Commission, that she would be out at times nobody knows of  and it will be “spontaneous”…Assist. Town Manager reminded the Commission of the May 18,2009 spec events renewing… and having to provide for code compliance (?)…McIntee asked about coming back the next night or letting Code Officer Williams do it….Comm. Dodd inquired about the lights (still daylight out at 7:40 pm)…McIntee said he had no problem with whatever lights were decided on…saying they all agree on canceling the next day…No motion could be made at a workshop……Reiterations were made of what Kim Williams would do until June 9th…..More discussion on the lights from the street and the beach…and for Nikki to contact the Mayor about Sat. night being canceled…They adjourned at 7:45 pm…

The reading were anywhere between 69.3…71.1-…83.2…84.6…Most could not be heard or seen…a look at the minutes being taken by Office Specialist Nikki will be needed for all the info collected from the decibel meter readings…

More to come…

Post Division

Here’s The Scoop….What Do General MacArthur and Vice Mayor/ VFD Dep. Chief McIntee Have In Common?…

May 20, 2009 by Barbara

NEVER LEAVE HOME WITHOUT YOUR PERSONAL PHOTOGRAPHER…

A look at the LBTS Commission “Field Trip” on Noise…( 5/15/09)….currently being shown on Comcast ch. 78…(available on the Town website later today…http://www.lauderdalebythesea-fl.gov/) shows that McIntee like MacArthur makes sure to have his personal photographer ( Marc Furth) following behind him to photograph his every move!….

By the way what was the decibel meter reading on the wind?….

This is one outing you don’t want to miss seeing!…

more to come on the content later…

Post Division
« Newer PostsOlder Posts »