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…..

Tags: heights, local government, local plitics, Local Politics, Scoops
Posted in Uncategorized

WE NEED TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE ……

Funny thing happened at the May 13,2009 LBTS Referendum Workshop…it became a a soapbox for some commissioners to explain that it was their belief that their role as our elected officials is to “protect” us from future elected officials!…

The referendum items these commissioners want us to accept are like dealing with bubble wrap….hard to penetrate … all those bubbles to pop…pop…pop…pop…and still after making a lot of noise you get nowhere to what’s inside… … frustrated…and short on time …the average person will most likely just to toss the damn thing aside…deciding it just isn’t worth it…and the item…goes back on the shelf until someone else comes along years later and gets curious about what’s inside…having heard it’s something that might be worth taking a look at…

This writer always has a problem with someone who thinks they “need” to protect us from the future and ourselves….because it always involves taking away freedom of choice in the process…

The meeting began with a room unevenly divided and a real change in the hall’s makeup…It is known that the new Chair of the CIC sent out an alert to be at this meeting…having to deal with the heights…but only a handful showed…and among those just the expected past Chair and Editor of the Mc-Furth Times who came to speak at the podium, her husband and co-Editor VFD Town photog. Marc Furth along with the new (“McIntee is God”) Vice- Chair of the CIC,  Joe Couriel, who rose to speak on heights…with no one standing to speak for the referendum on the VFD ….On the opposite side was the ever growing group of residents who are looking to reclaim the town and find some common ground in 2010…and speak they did…especially on the VFD referendum!…

A little back and forth over the rules this night…whether to keep the status quo of residents speaking  first…or change it up for commissioners to begin…with residents to follow…then back to responses commissioners …after a little tussle the Mayor took charge and said the residents would speak…and as the first member of the hall was ready to approach…the Vice Mayor said he was going to withdraw the first item…(his baby)…the VFD City of Cape Canaveral Referendum that would make it impossible to remove the VFD from the town as our fire safety provider without a vote of the people…along with a super majority required from the dais…

While happy about the Vice Mayor’s withdrawal…the second such action …(The VM removed the VFD Ordinance  2009-22 for 1st reading the evening before)…those in the audience were not accepting that he did not have an ulterior motive with this action…perhaps using it to silence those who came to oppose it and speak out…A gentleman came up to say as much…and he was given some doublespeak by the VM of anyone being able to bring it back at anytime…

Cristie Furth came to say she did not know what the point of this meeting was for having no idea what the Cape Canaveral or the Deerfield Beach Referendums contained …they needed explanation…and that these meetings should be run like the Planning and Zoning…

BC- Mrs. Furth is the Editor of the local BTSTimes…is BFF to McIntee/Silverstone …she is former Chair of the CIC/ Vice- Chair on P &Z / and unofficial town event coordinator….and she did not know the backup…how come?…

This writer came up to explain the backup was available and a Google would provide even more information…Thanked the VM  for removing the item and expressed that it was my hope this  VFD Referendum would not come back…for it is not needed…

Following up after the Mayor decided to open it up for all to address were 5 speakers who said the following …Bob Fleishman said “the volunteers are a paid organization with a renewable contract” …that “the “2-Hats” should recuse themselves” ..”.a 5 year engagement was long enough and at the end if all is well there would be no question it would continue…if not…it is a free society and we look for other options”…A gentleman said “the volunteers are proving themselves and another Commission will not throw them out…with pricing …and improving qualifications he did not see anyone trying to boot them out”….Diane Boutin spoke of reserving integrity and “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”…with contracted vendors…Ben Freeny spoke of trying to understand “why this is good for the town”…”what’s in it for the town”…and that “he could not come up with a reason that the VFD should be our permanent provider”…and expressed his concern over the time involved…assembling this meeting…removing the item and the possibility of its return on an upcoming agenda after this crowd has walked away…He also felt that changing the charter was a serious …Louis Marchelos came to say “the VFD and the Chief acted with great courage” and “the VFD needs to work to keep its edge”…”a super majority  to replace them brings complacency and any change in the level of service should allow the right to make a change.”..”you are the leaders so lead” he said…

Vice Mayor McIntee tried to make his case for why “we” the VFD want this (permanent employment)…he related he is apart of the old guys and the “vast majority” are under 30 …that to call them paid volunteers does them a disservice when they get out of bed in the misdle of the night to go on calls…with “some making $1000 and most making $400 to $500 a month”….He then went into his familiar litany of blame with the the past commission…previous assurances of the VFD taking over if they (VFD) “turned  it around”…and the VFD did that …getting rid of their “beer machine”…and working hard…Then said the VM They (OG commissioners) did “everything in their power”  to get them out..”in the middle of the night ” they “padlocked the station”…and they (VFD) need “protection” so this cannot happen again for “politcal reasons”…He added a referendum would be a winner with a 670-30 win for the VFD to be permanent…He said the VFD “cleaned up their act” and “they are still being attacked”..the VFD members are “still afraid”…and that they saved us “two million dollars”…

BC- The past commission and the BSO did shut down the VFD on election day after we won the no-no-yes-yes…(44 feet/ term limits)…and this writer was standing next to then-Comm. McIntee when he got the call …outside Jarvis Hall as the voting ended…BUT…even his BFF Marc Furth said the padlocking and the final blow came from McIntee’s role in the dissension between the commission/BSO and the VFD…and it was Marc Furth that told this writer that McIntee was trying to do anything he could to rectify his own guilt…Again, we face the same situation with the VFD this time around…..No one wants to get rid of the VFD…just the Deputy Chief…and it is his actions that will again bring them down…(previous posts…VFD)…and as for any VFD members “being scared” and “attacked” we hear that too comes from fearing the VM/Dep. Chief himself!……

BFF Comm. Silverstone did what he always does and spoke about the “lies” he was told…the ISO…and the need as the VM said they need “something to protect the future” VFD…he is for a super majority…not a charter change…and that the VFD is a non-profit organization…

Comm. Dodd said he wanted to address this issue the previous evening ..that a 2013 contract was in place…and by then the town may be “politically stable”…that “the volunteers do not need protection” …and that after seeing the change in commissions over the last 4 years…due to the VFD removal…it would not happen again…the he is 100% behind the VFD and will help with providing them any professional training from qualified people required to improve the department…adding that ordinances, code and laws to protect them are not required…he spoke of the “bashing” he has taken up on the dais to ensure the VFD is doing their job…

Commissioner Clottey did not know what ordinance Comm. Dodd was referring to…HUH?…and he pointed out the ordinance 1st reading (2008-17/2009-22) removed the evening before…

BC-  “Clueless” is becoming too much the norm when it comes to Comm. Clottey’s actions of late…

Mayor Minnet stated she was against a paid contractor having such a charter change…and they should live by their performance and if they do not then their should be a change….She said the residents should bring signatures to this dais if they wanted such a referendum and she hope that with the ISO rating we can put the past behind us and move forward…

NO-NO-YES-YES….MAYBE?….

You know there are those that believe that if you tell a “story” long enough …it becomes the truth…and the “story” being told is that the election in 2008 was to remove the overlay districts and return to 33 feet…

This fairytale is fractured…and it is just one rung below the Vice Mayor’s “in the dead of the night” padlocking of the fire station “story”…For as stated from the podium and reiterated by Comm. Dodd who was candidate Dodd when the campaigning was in full swing…33 feet…was never uttered from the CIC!…

The mistake by Comm. Dodd and this writer along with many other former and present (sending in their $10 for the inside news only) members…was not to pay heed to former CIC Board member and founder John Thompson and to wipe away the overlay districts too quickly being unaware of the 33 feet that would return with the speedy action…Those who now say we should have known…they are right we should have…but did they tell us it would be the result….Nope, they were unusually mute!…We did not know at the time there was a Furth led self- serving agenda in the works…That’s the same self- serving Furth agenda we see today with the noise ordinance…the 4th of July “party”…leaving us with a dismal fireworks display…and any other Furth directed items they fancy coming from Comms. Clottey, Silverstone and Vice Mayor McIntee…

Cristie Furth never missing an opportunity to stop the development in this town stepped to the podium to say as much…saying the 1973  definitions of  height and zoning were perfect…..Her husband Marc concurred…saying protection was required and that 3 commissioners should not be able to bring  overlay districts back although he was not against 3 over 1 on the coast…CIC Vice -Chair (“McIntee is God”) Joe Couriel…said we need to “protect’ people from the “flip-flop” commissioners…recalling those who removed the police dept….and should retain a super majority…

Diane Boutin manager of the Windjammer  spoke of the “hot and cold” the “reality” of rebuilding and what would happen with her own oceanfront property…the loss of footage and rooms to comply without being able to build up saying you “can’t put a 10 pound bag of potatoes into a 5 pound bag”…adding the properties in town are 40 years or older and the need to be “progressive”….Louis Marchelos stated a 33 ft. height restriction is”ridiculous” …saying the Hospitality District is suffering in this economy …but the businesses have had to “think outside the box”…He spoke of the downtown…special events…and upgrades to draw a “good crowd”…A gentleman spoke of owning a hotel in Ft. Laud. and the costs involved…saying that a 12 unit cannot make it …and we will end up with all townhomes if 33 ft. the height…we need 44 ft on the beach…no back out on A1A…Ken Brenner added a community with no hospitality district means higher millage to make up for loss of commercial revenue…

P&Z Chair  Peanuts Wick and MPSC Chair Paul Novak were not on the agenda but did come with the plans thatr came from the commission approved expenditure to compare 33-44ft. and density and grade issues…

Being a little hot under the collar from the oversight…Peanuts started with ” You guys paid for it ,we don’t care”…(not too Mayoral, Peanuts)…He proceeded to make the presentation with the renderings ..saying they were concept ideas…pervious to impervious 50-50 …(see previous posts…MPSC meetings that were with P&Z for details…board cat.)…”Whatever you all want to do”…Peanuts said …as he followed up with speaking of the grade level…(also in MPSC and previous scoops posts on heights)…finishing up with relaying discussions with the previous Town Atty. on a return of a hospitality district …Paul spoke of having a lot more work to do…being a hotelier and that these modifications could ensure we do not have another Oriana…but he was for 44 ft. and was concerned that 33 ft. would take us “down the drain”…The Mayor thanked them …

Comm. Silverstone reiterated what he has said before on the dais…a  need for stability …that those waiting to buy or sell are sitting on the sidelines waiting to see what we are going to do ….and adding a rebuild after disaster to the original footprint and height should be allowed…

Comm. Clottey (Furth directed)…said we need a referendum and reiterated the mantra of 3 Commissioners should not have the authority to change things…HUH?…and we “cannot stay in a state of flux”…explaining the dollars lost for each hotel and being wrong on her facts of how many hotel rooms bit the dust in the last year…(it was 4X what she said)…explaining what hotels bring to the local restaurants and businesses…(A laugh was heard from the hall…due to Comm. Clottey and her recent role in the noise ord./special events ord.)….

Comm. Dodd. said he was disappointed by this …after having 3 elections…and the voters already saying what they want…He spoke of the CCCL line…grade…and the CIC with 44 ft….He spoke of where it is 44 ft and where it is 33 ft…and said to go out again that this time it should be about zoning…

Vice Mayor McIntee said he had to “chuckle” and went for his latest “story” that it was him and “Jimmy” who brought the town the Oriana “million”…Comm. Dodd in a point of order …set it straight…it was former Mayor Parker behind the scenes……and then totally ignoring the hoteliers…along with the businessmen…who spoke…he (VM) said he knew we could make money with small hotels…because he “spoke to someone in Miami with a  12 unit who was charging $4-500 a night”..Another laugh could be heard from the hoteliers in the hall..who almost in unison…said in Miami…not here!…

The Mayor said it should go back to the people …but should include the density …that past referendums “have lacked identifying certain areas”…the “T-Core”…that a balance needs to be found…

Comm. Silverstone….. Threw out a question to Comm. Dodd asking him to name the 3 times people voted…(Dodd did)…and then…(did he get a hand signal or text or e-mail message?)….he (Silverstone) did an about face and said he’s for 33 feet!…using the Seaward property as an example…

BC- Either he misspoke..the Seaward as Comm. Dodd informed him was approved recently to become a 3 bedroom residential/ rental property …and if he meant the Sea Lord…That, Comm. Silverstone is over 33 feet!…OUCH!…

The Vice Mayor spoke of a referendum with several choices including the 1973 guidelines ..a bedroom community and “not influencing” the voters…(HAH!…too funny a statement from the VM)…

Comm. Clottey asked the Town Attorney yet again what could or could not be done without a vote…and how we “could stop an overlay from coming back”…with Comm. Silverstone asking again of the Town Atty. if anyone could build to 44 ft. now…The Atty. tried to answers she looked over her paperwork…all seems again confused…and Comm. Clottey made a motion (motions are not allowed at workshops)…ending up with the Vice Mayor wanting the attorney to “see if the old overlay was illegal”…

The Mayor said we” preserve our beachfront”…”density does control the size of the building”…and a bedroom community would pass on the expenses…

A short break was taken…and after returning “buyer’s remorse” perhaps…or constituents voicing there displeasure…must have been behind Comm. Clottey asking the cost of the Vice Mayor’s direction into the past legality of the the overlay districts….the Atty. could not give her a answer..the VM wanted a “determination anyway”…and Comm. Dodd said to find out if it was legal or illegal was of concern more to see what could be enacted going forth…if we had legally disbanded a legal or illegal act….which would determine how it could be brought back…if desired…

Comm. Silverstone pointed out that he is already going over the budget and the Town Manger informed him we saved $200,000 in legal costs with the new firm last year…

BC- A look at the budget and previous posts will also show that the Town Manager often did the ordinances etc…without the Town Atty. causing them to go back quite a few times due to errors…costing time as well as money……and eventually that stopped …so we thought?…

Moving on to the referendum item introduced by Comm. Silverstone…to follow Deerfield Beach and require a vote for selling assets of the town..such as land and buildings above a certain amount…

The public spoke first with Diane Boutin making her points about “reinventing the wheel”…explaining what restricting such sales would cover…such as the sale of the water pipes top Ft. Laud. which netted the Town $350,000 last year …fire lanes, vacant run-down cul-de-sacs …..reminding the commission that the town is 98% built out…and to implore them not to continue to look back at prior commissions …engineers …to stop the witch hunt…also asking the size of Deerfield Beach compared to LBTS…and the need to look at today’s requirements…

BC- We hear the Mayor was quite shocked to see BTSTimes Editor/VFD & Town Photog/ 4th of July Coordinator Marc Furth pretend to put his finger down his throat as this constituent spoke!…

Maryann Wardlaw…spoke of needing to look back to not repeat it again…

Comm. Silverstone said there was a “misunderstanding”…and explained about the 1998 D.F. Beach Referendum to prevent the majority off the commission from abusing their power, to protect this town…Let the people decide he said…D. F. Beach has a $750,000 amount attached to their referendum…He (Silverstone) was thinking $250,000…but he said our Town Manager suggested $1 million…

Vice Mayor McIntee said a terrible problem arose with the past commission and the sale of the Shore Court cul-de-sac…(previous LBTS agenda/meeting cat.)…This is familiar to those who regularly watch the meetings…and at the time…then Town Atty. Cherof tried to set McIntee straight on the property and to shoot down some of his assertions of it giving residents a right to walk to the water…Last time this arose the previous Town Atty. Abbott was to check out the return of this land to the town…McIntee then for umpteenth time said “the cookies were in”…

Comm. Dodd asked if it only applied to sales…and that was affirmed ….

Comm. Clottey thought a million was to high and could accept $250,000 The Mayor said if people want this they should get the signatures and this should not be “railroaded through”…

The Vice Mayor said it revolves around a 5 letter word “trust”…again quite a few “guffaws” were heard in the hall….McIntee then went on to speak of past actions from the previous dais…

Comm. Silverstone said he had heard from people that were frustrated …wanting representation …”people want this”…he said…Comm/ Dodd brought up the Dixie Hwy. warehouse we still have not sold…and would this apply to that sale…There was discussion on taking it out of the equation…it being on the ballot…and Comm. Silverstone said he thought since it was not in town it didn’t count!..HUH?…

The special election was last on the agenda to decide…

This writer came to the podium to say I had heard the Capital Assets Referendum was not desired…and that what about buying properties…such ass the hotel and parking lots…and to use the referendum items as an election “tool”  for those running for office…Diane Boutin spoke of these times of “economic strife” …”the Town is a business that does not need to expend the money”  for a special election and to wait until March…and the claims repeatedly made throughout the evening of “only 3 people” on the dais changing things…were not just 3 people they were the constituents these 3 represented…adding businesses and renters also deserved representation…Cristie Furth said excellent examples were given …and spoke against the developers and use El Mar becoming 1 lane as an example…also talking of the points of beauty…vistas…not to have a special election…and touching on the warehouse sale…

BC- An interesting choice for Mrs. Furth to speak of 1 lane El Mar…due to the fact that even though it was a long held belief of the CIC that once the Oriana was finished with its last C.O. the million would go to return the 1 lane to 2 in front of the development……But it was Cristie Furth who said.. … never mind…we’ll keep it that way…YEP!…

Marie Chiarello said it best..when she said anytime you have 3 commissioners there will always be a couple of people who come to fight them..

Comm. Silverstone…who has noticeably lost his bearings …said “This election could be bought”…It was not necessary to have a special election …and he is for “public safety and protecting the town”…

BC- It was Comm. Silverstone who put forth the ordinance that passed to cut down the amount of money that could be donated to a candidate…HMMMM…

The Vice Mayor …said the motion had already been passed for the warehouse sale and it could be written by the Town Atty. that way…(The Town Atty. did not seem to agree with his interpretation)…McIntee was for the March election saying the items on the ballot could get people interested…

Comm. Clottey asked Comm. Silverstone for an exception to be included for property sold at market value…and Silverstone said those properties were grandfathered in…Asked by the Mayor for Nov. special election or March…Clottey said she  “could go either way.”…HUH?…

BC- We hear her constituents in the hall made it clear they did not want to spend money for the Nov. election shortly before this comment…they were bewildered by her response…

Comm. Dodd wanted to add the ethics (2-HATS)…and other issues of importance to the voters…He was in favor of March…

Mayor Minnet was also in favor of March 2010…having solid referendum items…and spoke of the Capital Assets Referendum wanting to do it proposing 100% and then deciding to take certain properties out….

Some brief comments were made by Comm. Silverstone and the Vice Mayor…and the meeting was adjourned…

So what can we expect…more and more revisionist history…and the need to “protect” us from the future commission!…

more to come….

Tags: assets, heights, LBTS Agendas/Meetings, local governmnet, Local News, local pokitics, Local Politics, referendums, Scoops, special elections, VFD
Posted in Uncategorized

LBTS IS ABOUT TO BE MC-STEAMROLLED INTO A $$$$$ NOVEMBER SPECIAL ELECTION….

Dear Readers…below is what will be on the Wed. May 13,2009 Referendum Workshop….7 pm Jarvis Hall …public welcome on Comcast Channel 78/ online Town website...http://www.lauderdalebythesea-fl.gov/ …included is the link to the website workshop backup materials…some previous BCbythesea posts…and muni-code sites of towns used for reference to copy the proposed  referendums…

Unfortunately the voters are going to hear a whole lot of “revisionist” history on the 33 feet height limit…while not being told the FACTS that the City of Cape Canaveral is a primarily a Professional Fire Dept. with few VFD members…So to compare LBTS-VFD with them is absurd…especially with the current leadership in place!…

BCbythesea …previous post…

FROM 2/10/09….OLD BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM 15 a…….

Discussion and/or action pertaining to referendum ie: City of Cape Canaveral…VM McIntee …(previous post full text …LBTS agenda/meetings…agenda 2/10/09)….

VM-” I want to call for a workshop in May ah, so we can discuss this because of the potential referendum”…he also made reference to New Bus. item 16 b. for heights to be a May workshop for referendum also…”…to kill two birds with one stone….”….

The Mayor looked at the calendar…and Comm. Silverstone wanted to make sure the  purchase Capital “sales” was included…

BC- ALERT- this 3rd referendum should include both the purchase of and the selling of property above a certain dollar figure requiring a vote of the people….

More discussion ensued about the time line for the Supervisor of Elections…the Town Manager believed it was August for a Nov. election…

BC- remember a special election will cost approx. $13 thousand dollars….

Comm. Dodd- ” On this particular item I would like to make a motion at this time to table, and I mean table it indefinitely as opposed to a date certain. If the VFD and their leadership are doing the job correctly there is absolutely no fear that any member of this dais would want to commit political suicide by trying to get rid of the VFD. If the VFD fall down on the job or their leadership starts behaving unprofessionally, cutting corners, disobeying the laws, SOPs to the extent of jeopardizing  the safety and welfare of the men under their command, I want this Commission to have the power to do something about immediately.”

CD- ” Public safety can not wait for a municipality to argue over the wording of a referendum.”

CD-” We are entrusted to do a job and this is one occasion where we don’t need a referendum to help us.’

CD-” My motion on this particular item is to table indefinitely and I’m going to ask if anyone would like to second it? We don’t need this folks, I’m afraid this is not a referendum issue. We here should be entrusted with public safety. Cape Canaveral made an immediate change of motion that the Commission could take the power back because of the realization that this referendum was the wrong way to go and I believe I don’t want to make the same mistake and I think the VFD have the full support of this said if they’re doing their job right and if they’re not doing their job right we need the immediate power to be able to do something about it. It’s not an issue where you go and start arguing about the wording on a referendum to go to the people on something . We’re entrusted with public safety and this is one issue that has to remain on this dais.”

Comm. Dodd asked for a 2nd…received none…motion died for lack of that 2nd…

Comm. Clottey- ” I did not disagree with anything you said Commissioner Dodd”…BUT…said “the Commission should have the power in an emergency to withdraw and say somebody else needs to come  because somebody’s not doing a good job.”…She thought  if the referendum was written properly that this could be retained by the Commission….she didn’t believe anybody would want a fire department that couldn’t do the job properly…continuing on with how to “frame” the referendum with “If you’re not doing something right within a certain amount of time such and such will happen.”…She said this  ( referendum) is something a lot of people are asking for, so she has no problem going for it, but it’s all in the wording , how it’s done and believes that will be put in …(referencing the Cape Canaveral State of Emergency Ord. done by the City Council on the same day the referendum passed…see 2/10/09 agenda for text)…

The Mayor wanted the VM to make a motion…but he wanted to speak first…

VM-” I would, but I also want to discuss something. First of all this referendum will be decided by this dais on what it will say and there’s five pretty smart people up here who’ll be able to put in writing in referendum form and the first thing will be paramount in y mind is to make sure the safety of the Town is number one and if that means instant control to the dais if there’s a major problem it should happen that way. But  it all goes back to you the people. This will be your decision. You can vote this down or vote it up. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything, we simply PREVENT (Freudian slip VM?)…present you a proposal for the, whatever the referendum will say, we’ll put safety clause in it. I’m sure and then you’ll make the decision not us, you. And that’s one of the weaknesses that has happened on this dais in the past. The dais made a lot of decisions that weren’t the will of the people and this on the will of the people will ring out because you’ll be voting on it. And I agree with Commissioner Clottey, she’s not gonna let this fly by without there being safety clauses in there, nor am I, nor will Commissioner Dodd, nor will the Mayor or Jimmy.But it will be your decision if you want to protect the VFD or not. Not ours, we’ll just give you a presentation. So that’s my point now, I’ll yield to Jimmy.”

Comm. Silverstone-” The issue came up with political suicide that’s happened before and I can see it happening again. Maybe not with this Commission but a future agenda, a future Commission could bring this up and terminate the volunteers.It could happen, it happened before. Um, it doesn’t prevent safety clauses from being inserted in this but give the rights to people out there.That’s one of the reasons I got elected I think  Vice Mayor, Mayor McIntee also got elected on the viewpoint that people in this town are very ah, very close to the VFD, but again public safety has to be paramount that, that cannot be put aside. But it, there is a way to create a referendum that will answer both questions, both issues but I think it’s important to put it out there as a referendum to get people involved because last time this happened the people weren’t involved and a riot almost broke out and I think we should do almost everything we can to listen to the will of the people and that’s the only true way of doing that. And that’s all I have.”

The Mayor said no motion was required for a workshop…some dates were thrown around for early to late May…Comm. Dodd thought earlier  in April to see what the language was…the Mayor threw in the option of waiting until March 2010…the VM…not listening said a special election could be called……as he and his “2-Hat” BFF Comm. Silverstone both said this was a very important issue that “deserves it’s own time!”…..

BC- MAY 13,2009 WORKSHOP AGENDA…..

1.    CALL TO ORDER, MAYOR ROSEANN MINNET

2.    PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

3.    ITEMS OF DISCUSSION:

a.    Fire

BC- backup supplied…online..http://www.lauderdalebythesea-fl.gov/town/workshopbackup2009.htm

i.    Re: City of Cape Canaveral Referendum (Vice Mayor McIntee – February 10, 2009)

ii.    Ordinance 2008-17: An Ordinance of the Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea, Florida amending the Town Charter to require the Town to contract with Lauderdale-By-The-Sea Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., for the provision of fire protection services within the Town; requiring referendum approval or s four-fifths vote of the Town Commission for any entity other than  Lauderdale-By-The-Sea Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. to provide primary fire Protection services in the Town; providing for conflicts with other provisions of the Town Charter; calling for a referendum election;  providing for the form of the ballot; providing for conflicts, severability, codification and an effective date (Vice Mayor McIntee – November 10, 2008)

BCbythesea… previous post…..excerpts…

TO REPLACE (VFD) CONTRACT WITH ORDINANCE….

BC- VFD contract goes to Sept. 30, 2013…

City of Cape Canaveral muni-codes…Is this what LBTS wants?……

1-Type in Volunteer Fire Department….

‘ARTICLE XIV.  FIRE DEPARTMENT

Sec. 1.  Authorization of fire department.
Editor’s note: This section has been editorially transferred to the Code of Ordinances as certain provisions of a Charter adopted prior to July 1, 1973, and not subsequently amended by referendum have been converted to ordinances by operation of F.S. § 166.021(5). This section is section 38-56 in the Code of Ordinances.

Sec. 2.  Volunteer fire department.
Editor’s note: This section has been editorially transferred to the Code of Ordinances as certain provisions of a Charter adopted prior to July 1, 1973, and not subsequently amended by referendum have been converted to ordinances by operation of F.S. § 166.021(5). This section is section 38-57 in the Code of Ordinances.

Sec. 3.  Duties of fire chief.
Editor’s note: This section has been editorially transferred to the Code of Ordinances as certain provisions of a Charter adopted prior to July 1, 1973, and not subsequently amended by referendum have been converted to ordinances by operation of F.S. § 166.021(5). This section is section 38-58 in the Code of Ordinances.

[Sec. 4.  Fire protection services.]
The council shall pass no ordinance, resolution, or motion obligating or authorizing the City to establish or operate a Fire Department, or to build or acquire a Fire Station, or to contract for fire protection services with any person, governmental entity or corporation other than the Cape Canaveral Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., without such plan or proposal having been first approved by a majority vote of the qualified electors of the City voting in a general election or one held for this purpose. Nothing herein shall prevent the City or Cape Canaveral Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., from entering into a Mutual Aid Agreement with any municipality, Brevard County or any private or federal agency for the purpose of supplementing the fire protection services provided by the Cape Canaveral Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.
Further providing that any action previously taken by Resolution, motion or otherwise to establish or operate a Fire Department or to build or acquire a Fire Station shall be terminated or stayed until brought into compliance with this Section.
(Added by election, 11-5-85)’

2- replace Volunteer Fire Department with fire safety…

Sec. 38-56.  Fire protection services; emergency medical services.

http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=12642&sid=9

BC-The way I see it…Cape Canaveral has a Professional/Volunteer Fire Dept VS…LBTS all volunteer…We have seen an increase month by month with major secrecy …..VFD Bylaws being disregarded…response time being “‘fudged”…and a “VFD Sub-Chief”…who is rally an uninformed “front man”for the Deputy Chief…who makes purchases…gets quotes…and we hear holds onto the VFD credit card which is at odds with the statements made to the Fl. Ethics Commission…….VFD  meetings are now closed , despite the opposite open to the public policy touted  prior…(still awaiting VFD Atty. info to verify)…Cape Canaveral’s BOD is open to the public…Being one of those who “almost rioted” …it would not happen again for this writer….as it was due to the CIC- McIntee spin…not knowing what he was doing at the time …to cause the final termination…per Marc Furth…and others…The reason to fear “political suicide” could be back to the table…when it seemed an impossibility just a year ago with the major Commission upset?…All roads lead back to….Vice Mayor/Deputy Chief McIntee…once again making the demise of the VFD a real possibility of winning ticket for a candidate…….by offering up a professional Fire Chief…and strict oversight …which if not followed could lead to a termination….The wording on a referendum…any of these referendums being done right….minuscule in this writer’s opinion after watching ordinances……codes and such over the past year….along with those who could guarantee the Town gets them right…being tossed out!…And finally no private corporation should ever be in the position to hold a town hostage with such a “deal”….. If that’s the case…then be fair and add ……AMR…Waste Management….and Comcast……and all other Town contracted corporations to the referendum…..For this voter…spending $13 thousand….on this referendum item….for this VFD controlled by McIntee…YUCK!….

more to come…….

http://www.ccvfd.org/

BC-Since this Feb. post…we have continued to see the VFD and acts that question how it is being run…The recent P.R. Press over the hyperbaric chamber…Incident Reports showing differences between P.R. “spin” and actual responses…written days after the incident with many inaccuracies…The VFD Sea Doo lack of viable training being required…Booster Club Funds used for P.R. politically in one local newspaper…Purchasing involvement being done by the Deputy Chief in what appears to be a violation of his assertions to the Fl. Ethics Commission in his Dec. 2008 letter sent before usurping the VFD by-laws and taking on his Dep. Chief position ….And the  BIG ONE….that should put the brakes on this referendum…the recent  release of ISO report of the VFD that clearly shows there is a major problem with the training in the VFD led by none other than  “2-Hats” Commissioner/Deputy Chief McIntee who is the originator of this referendum!…Wake up voters…wake up!…(ISO report previous post…scoops cat.)

b.    Height

BC- backup supplied…online..http://www.lauderdalebythesea-fl.gov/town/workshopbackup2009.htm

From previous BCbythesea post…

BC….From The Town Website...http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=14431&sid=9

PAY ATTENTION TO…Sec. 7.1….(a)(b)(c)…./PARAGRAPH 8 & 9….

ARTICLE VII.  PLANNING AND ZONING

Sec. 7.1.  Maximum height for buildings established; referendum vote required for increases in zoned residential-district height limits.
(1)   No building within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Town, as they existed on March 20, 2006, shall have more than four (4) stories above grade, and the maximum height of buildings within the Town that have four (4) stories above grade shall be forty-four (44) feet above grade, as defined in the Florida Building Code, or above a horizontal plane eighteen inches above the crown of the roadway at the highest point adjoining the property on which the building is located, whichever of those two levels is higher. The maximum height for all other buildings within the Town shall be thirty-three (33) feet
(a)   Above grade, as defined in the Florida Building Code, or
(b)   Above a horizontal plane eighteen inches above the crown if the roadway at the highest point adjoining the property on which the building is located, or
(c)   Above the minimum elevation for a habitable, finished floor permitted under applicable federal or Florida state regulations,
Whichever of those three levels is highest. Height shall be measured from the applicable base level specified above to the highest point on a flat roof, or to the median elevation between the peak of a sloped roof and the lowest edge of the sloped roof. In accordance with the Florida Building Code, bulkheads and penthouses used solely to enclose stairways, tanks, elevator machinery or shafts or ventilation or air conditioning apparatus shall not be included in determining building height; all other roofs structures, including parapet walls, shall not exceed four feet in height above the maximum allowed building height.
(2)   In any building within the Town that has more than three (3) stories above grade, the first story shall be at grade level and shall be used for parking, either with or without toll collection booths. The first story may also be used for storage, refuse, security, registration, maintenance, and/or access, either with or without a lobby, provided that at least one-half ( 1/2) of the square footage of the first story is used for parking. Only within districts of the Town zoned for business (“B”) use, the first story of buildings having more than three (3) stories above grade may also be devoted to non-residential commercial uses, provided that dedicated parking required by Town ordinance or code for the proposed buildings is provided off-street at a location on or adjacent to the property on which the buildings are situate, and designed so as to enable the parked vehicles to egress the parking space without having to back out into traffic. In any building within the Town that has more than three (3) stories above grade, the first story shall be restricted to the above enumerated uses, and may be used for no other purpose whatsoever. For the purposes of this provision of the Charter, a story is at grade level if its floor is at or below grade and its ceiling is above grade; a story that is at grade level is also above grade. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed so as to prohibit any building within the Town that has more than three (3) stories above grade from also having one (1) or more subterranean stories below grade, provided, however, that in any building within the Town that has more than three (3) stories above grade, all subterranean stories shall be subject to the same restrictions on use as are established in this paragraph for the first story.
(3)   Buildings which exceed thirty three (33) feet above grade, and which exceed thirty three (33) feet above the horizontal plane eighteen inches above the crown of the roadway at the highest point adjoining the property on which the building is located, but which are nevertheless allowed under subparagraph (1)(c) of this Section, and which do not include a non-habitable first floor with ample parking as required by Town ordinance or code, in accordance with the number and type of units in those buildings, must have dedicated off-street parking at a location on or adjacent to the property on which the buildings are situate. Parking for buildings in this category must be designed so as to enable the parked vehicles to egress the parking space without having to back out into traffic.
(4)   All existing buildings within the Town that were legally in compliance with existing height and use restrictions on March 20, 2006, or were grandfathered on that date, but that either exceed the maximum building height limit established in paragraph (1), above, of this section of the Charter, or that fail to comply, where applicable, with the restrictions on use established in paragraph (2), above, of this section of the Charter, (hereinafter referred to as “Non-conforming Buildings”) shall be considered legal, but non-conforming.
(5)   Notwithstanding the maximum building height limit established in paragraph (1), above, of this section of the Charter, an existing non-conforming building may be replaced by a new nonconforming building when, and only when:
(a)   The existing non-conforming building has:
(i)   Been destroyed by fire, natural disaster, or other act of God; and
(ii)   The property owner has submitted and received Town approval of a site plan depicting the replacement building; and
(iii)   Construction of the replacement building is commenced within twelve (12) months of the date of destruction; or
(b)   The existing non-conforming building is:
(i)   Demolished as part of a Town approved redevelopment of the property; and
(ii)   Prior to demolition, the property owner has submitted and received Town approval of a site plan depicting the replacement building; and
(iii)   Construction of the replacement building is commenced within six (6) months of the date of site plan approval.
(c)   The Town Commission may grant one (1) or more six (6) month extensions to the time periods for commencement of construction established in paragraphs (5)(a)(iii) and (5)(b)(iii), above, provided a written request for extension is filed with the Town Clerk prior to (in the case of a first request for extension) the expiration of the initial applicable time period for commencement of construction or prior to (in the case of a subsequent request for extension) the expiration of the most recent extension of the applicable time period for commencement of construction.
(d)   All new non-conforming buildings constructed pursuant to the provisions of either paragraph (5)(a) or (5)(b), above, shall comply, where applicable, with the restrictions on use established in paragraph (2), above, and the provisions for parking availability established in paragraph (3), above, of this section of the Charter.
(e)   The maximum allowable height of any new non-conforming building constructed pursuant to the provisions of either paragraph (5)(a) or (5)(b), above, shall not exceed the original height of the non-conforming building which it replaces, plus any additional height which (because of the requirements of state or federal law, or because of the restrictions on use established in paragraph (2), above, of this section of the charter) may be necessary to obtain the same number of habitable stories as was contained in the original non-conforming building. Nothing in this section of the Charter shall be construed to prevent a new non-conforming building from being constructed to a lesser height or from containing fewer habitable stories than that of the original non-conforming building which it replaces. For the purposes of this provision of the Charter, the term “habitable story” means any story or part thereof that is used as a home or place of abode, either permanent or temporary, by one (1) or more persons.
(f)   The maximum allowable square footage of any new nonconforming building constructed pursuant to the provisions of either paragraph (5)(a) or (5)(b), above, shall not exceed the original square footage of the non-conforming building which it replaces, plus any additional square footage which (because of the requirements of state or federal law, or because of the restrictions on use established in paragraph (2), above, of this section of the Charter) may be necessary to obtain the same number of habitable square feet as was contained in the original non-conforming building. Nothing in this section of the Charter shall be construed to prevent a new nonconforming building from being constructed either with less total square footage or with less habitable square footage than that of the original non-conforming building which it replaces. For the purposes of this section of the Charter, the term “habitable square footage” means the square footage of that portion of a building that is used as a home or place of abode, either permanent or temporary, by one (1) or more persons.
(6)   The maximum building height limits, the restrictions on use and the maximum allowable square footage, and the provisions governing parking established in paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (5), above, of this section of the Charter, shall be applicable to all real property located within the boundaries of the Town as the boundaries exist on March 20, 2006.
(7)   Every resident of the Town shall have the standing to enforce the maximum building height limits and the maximum allowable square footage established in paragraphs (1), (2) and (5), above, of this section of the Charter, by means of a suit in equity seeking either mandamus; prohibition; or any combination thereof, but nothing in this provision of the Charter shall he construed to either create a cause of action at law for money damages, or to authorize a court of equity to award money damages as an incident to equitable relief, or to authorize an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party or to any other party.
(8)   The maximum building height limit established in paragraph (1), above, of this section of the Charter, supersedes any existing zoning ordinance or land development regulation to the extent that said zoning ordinance or land development regulation establishes anywhere within the Town a maximum building height limit greater than that established in paragraph (1), above, of this section of the Charter, but nothing in this section of the Charter shall be construed to supersede, modify or repeal any existing zoning ordinance or land development regulation that establishes anywhere within the Town a maximum building height limit lower than that established in paragraph (1), above, of this section of the Charter.
(9)   The Town Commission may not increase, by ordinance or by variance, the maximum building height limits established in paragraphs (1) and (5), above, of this section of the Charter, nor may the Town Commission modify, amend or repeal, by ordinance or by variance, the restrictions on use established in paragraph (2), above, or the provisions for parking availability established in paragraphs (2), (3) or (5), above, of this section of the Charter, nor may the Town Commission increase, by ordinance or by variance, the maximum allowable square footage established in paragraph (5), above, of this section of the Charter. The maximum height limits established for residential zoning districts including, but not limited to, R-5, RS-4, RS-5, RD-10, RM-15, RM-16, RM-25 and PUD in the Town’s land development code as of March 20, 2006, may be increased, or such districts re-zoned for any other use whatsoever, only by a referendum vote of the registered voters of the Town in the manner established in Article IV, Section 4.7 [50] of this Charter for the repeal or amendment of initiated ordinances. The Town may not create new categories of zoning without approval of such categories by a similar referendum vote; and all provisions of such new categories of zoning must be submitted to the voters for approval.
(10)   The maximum building height limits established in paragraphs (1) and (5), above, of this section of the Charter, may be increased only by an amendment to or by repeal of this section of the Charter. The restrictions on use established in paragraph (2), above, and the provisions governing parking availability established in paragraphs (2), (3) and (5), above, of this section of the Charter, may be modified, amended or repealed only by an amendment to or by repeal of this section of the Charter. The maximum allowable square footage established in paragraph (5), above, of this provision of the Charter, may be increased only by an amendment to, or by repeal of this section of the Charter. Except as expressly provided below, this section of the Charter may be amended or repealed only by means of a majority vote of the registered voters of the Town at a referendum election held either on the same day as a regularly scheduled November general election or on the same day as a regularly scheduled March municipal general election. The amendment or repeal of this section of the Charter at a special election held on a day other than a regularly scheduled November general election or on a day other than a regularly scheduled March municipal general election is expressly prohibited, except that a special election or special election by mail may be held to correct, to the minimum practicable extent, a provision adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to violate the State or Federal Constitution or any valid state or federal law, but only after such adjudication is affirmed on appeal. Amendments approved at a special election may include no elements not directly related to such court adjudication.

(11)   These provisions of the Charter shall be effective immediately upon adoption by a majority of the registered voters of the Town voting in a referendum to amend the Charter so as to include these provisions. Upon adoption, the maximum building height limits, the restrictions on use, the maximum allowable square footage and the provisions governing parking availability established in paragraphs (1), (2, (3) and (5), above, of this section of the Charter, shall immediately apply to all real property located within the boundaries of the entire Town. Upon adoption of these provisions, and pending amendment of any portion or portions of the Town’s Code of Ordinances inconsistent with this section of the Charter, the more stringent provisions of this section shall apply.

http://www.florida-eminent-domain.com/private-property-act.html

The confusion over the Charter…the Code…the grade…the 100 year flood plain…the coastal construction control line…http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/publications/tech-rpt.htm

BC- below is in the backup supplied…online..http://www.lauderdalebythesea-fl.gov/town/workshopbackup2009.htm

i.    Minutes

ii.    Previous Referendum

iii.    Additional Documents

c.    Capital Assets

BC- below is in the backup supplied…online..http://www.lauderdalebythesea-fl.gov/town/workshopbackup2009.htm

i.    Re:  City of Deerfield Beach – Resolution No. C-1998/073

ii.    Restrictions on the sale, gift, trade, transfer or lease of all or a portion of City owned real property

BC- Deerfield Beach Muni-codes..link below….

Section 7.09.  Other referendum election.

d.    Determination on Proposed Special Election

BC- Why would we want to spend almost $14,000 for a special election in Nov. 2009…when we will have a municipal election 4 months later…providing no cost to the taxpayers?…If this passes…by the Mc-Gang of 3…It should be front and center for whomever challenges the “2-Hats” “Broom Boys” in that election!…

4.    ADJOURNMENT

overview to follow…

Tags: heights, LBTS Agendas/Meetings, local government, Local Politics, referendums, Scoops, VFD
Posted in Uncategorized

READY FOR REFERENDUM ……READY TO RUMBLE…..

The CIC will have a general meeting this coming Mon. 2/2/09…and a part of their meeting will be to further “attack” Commissioner Dodd ala the Cristie Furth MPSC statements of untruths…claiming he is for 4 stories…overlay districts and less green space…WRONG!…Try “planned development”….as stated before…during and after he was elected…

FROM THE CIC LETTER….

‘A topic that the CIC organization must watchdog? is a discussion among certain members of the dais to raise the height limit back up to four stories (currently 3 stories) along our beach front in Old Town.  The current height limit situation and what has been discussed will be thoroughly reviewed as well as possible action to be taken by the CIC at this meeting so, please plan to attend and let your thoughts be known.’

BC….From The Town Website...http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=14431&sid=9

PAY ATTENTION TO…Sec. 7.1….(a)(b)(c)…./PARAGRAPH 8 & 9….

ARTICLE VII.  PLANNING AND ZONING

Sec. 7.1.  Maximum height for buildings established; referendum vote required for increases in zoned residential-district height limits.
(1)   No building within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Town, as they existed on March 20, 2006, shall have more than four (4) stories above grade, and the maximum height of buildings within the Town that have four (4) stories above grade shall be forty-four (44) feet above grade, as defined in the Florida Building Code, or above a horizontal plane eighteen inches above the crown of the roadway at the highest point adjoining the property on which the building is located, whichever of those two levels is higher. The maximum height for all other buildings within the Town shall be thirty-three (33) feet
(a)   Above grade, as defined in the Florida Building Code, or
(b)   Above a horizontal plane eighteen inches above the crown if the roadway at the highest point adjoining the property on which the building is located, or
(c)   Above the minimum elevation for a habitable, finished floor permitted under applicable federal or Florida state regulations,
Whichever of those three levels is highest. Height shall be measured from the applicable base level specified above to the highest point on a flat roof, or to the median elevation between the peak of a sloped roof and the lowest edge of the sloped roof. In accordance with the Florida Building Code, bulkheads and penthouses used solely to enclose stairways, tanks, elevator machinery or shafts or ventilation or air conditioning apparatus shall not be included in determining building height; all other roofs structures, including parapet walls, shall not exceed four feet in height above the maximum allowed building height.
(2)   In any building within the Town that has more than three (3) stories above grade, the first story shall be at grade level and shall be used for parking, either with or without toll collection booths. The first story may also be used for storage, refuse, security, registration, maintenance, and/or access, either with or without a lobby, provided that at least one-half ( 1/2) of the square footage of the first story is used for parking. Only within districts of the Town zoned for business (“B”) use, the first story of buildings having more than three (3) stories above grade may also be devoted to non-residential commercial uses, provided that dedicated parking required by Town ordinance or code for the proposed buildings is provided off-street at a location on or adjacent to the property on which the buildings are situate, and designed so as to enable the parked vehicles to egress the parking space without having to back out into traffic. In any building within the Town that has more than three (3) stories above grade, the first story shall be restricted to the above enumerated uses, and may be used for no other purpose whatsoever. For the purposes of this provision of the Charter, a story is at grade level if its floor is at or below grade and its ceiling is above grade; a story that is at grade level is also above grade. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed so as to prohibit any building within the Town that has more than three (3) stories above grade from also having one (1) or more subterranean stories below grade, provided, however, that in any building within the Town that has more than three (3) stories above grade, all subterranean stories shall be subject to the same restrictions on use as are established in this paragraph for the first story.
(3)   Buildings which exceed thirty three (33) feet above grade, and which exceed thirty three (33) feet above the horizontal plane eighteen inches above the crown of the roadway at the highest point adjoining the property on which the building is located, but which are nevertheless allowed under subparagraph (1)(c) of this Section, and which do not include a non-habitable first floor with ample parking as required by Town ordinance or code, in accordance with the number and type of units in those buildings, must have dedicated off-street parking at a location on or adjacent to the property on which the buildings are situate. Parking for buildings in this category must be designed so as to enable the parked vehicles to egress the parking space without having to back out into traffic.
(4)   All existing buildings within the Town that were legally in compliance with existing height and use restrictions on March 20, 2006, or were grandfathered on that date, but that either exceed the maximum building height limit established in paragraph (1), above, of this section of the Charter, or that fail to comply, where applicable, with the restrictions on use established in paragraph (2), above, of this section of the Charter, (hereinafter referred to as “Non-conforming Buildings”) shall be considered legal, but non-conforming.
(5)   Notwithstanding the maximum building height limit established in paragraph (1), above, of this section of the Charter, an existing non-conforming building may be replaced by a new nonconforming building when, and only when:
(a)   The existing non-conforming building has:
(i)   Been destroyed by fire, natural disaster, or other act of God; and
(ii)   The property owner has submitted and received Town approval of a site plan depicting the replacement building; and
(iii)   Construction of the replacement building is commenced within twelve (12) months of the date of destruction; or
(b)   The existing non-conforming building is:
(i)   Demolished as part of a Town approved redevelopment of the property; and
(ii)   Prior to demolition, the property owner has submitted and received Town approval of a site plan depicting the replacement building; and
(iii)   Construction of the replacement building is commenced within six (6) months of the date of site plan approval.
(c)   The Town Commission may grant one (1) or more six (6) month extensions to the time periods for commencement of construction established in paragraphs (5)(a)(iii) and (5)(b)(iii), above, provided a written request for extension is filed with the Town Clerk prior to (in the case of a first request for extension) the expiration of the initial applicable time period for commencement of construction or prior to (in the case of a subsequent request for extension) the expiration of the most recent extension of the applicable time period for commencement of construction.
(d)   All new non-conforming buildings constructed pursuant to the provisions of either paragraph (5)(a) or (5)(b), above, shall comply, where applicable, with the restrictions on use established in paragraph (2), above, and the provisions for parking availability established in paragraph (3), above, of this section of the Charter.
(e)   The maximum allowable height of any new non-conforming building constructed pursuant to the provisions of either paragraph (5)(a) or (5)(b), above, shall not exceed the original height of the non-conforming building which it replaces, plus any additional height which (because of the requirements of state or federal law, or because of the restrictions on use established in paragraph (2), above, of this section of the charter) may be necessary to obtain the same number of habitable stories as was contained in the original non-conforming building. Nothing in this section of the Charter shall be construed to prevent a new non-conforming building from being constructed to a lesser height or from containing fewer habitable stories than that of the original non-conforming building which it replaces. For the purposes of this provision of the Charter, the term “habitable story” means any story or part thereof that is used as a home or place of abode, either permanent or temporary, by one (1) or more persons.
(f)   The maximum allowable square footage of any new nonconforming building constructed pursuant to the provisions of either paragraph (5)(a) or (5)(b), above, shall not exceed the original square footage of the non-conforming building which it replaces, plus any additional square footage which (because of the requirements of state or federal law, or because of the restrictions on use established in paragraph (2), above, of this section of the Charter) may be necessary to obtain the same number of habitable square feet as was contained in the original non-conforming building. Nothing in this section of the Charter shall be construed to prevent a new nonconforming building from being constructed either with less total square footage or with less habitable square footage than that of the original non-conforming building which it replaces. For the purposes of this section of the Charter, the term “habitable square footage” means the square footage of that portion of a building that is used as a home or place of abode, either permanent or temporary, by one (1) or more persons.
(6)   The maximum building height limits, the restrictions on use and the maximum allowable square footage, and the provisions governing parking established in paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (5), above, of this section of the Charter, shall be applicable to all real property located within the boundaries of the Town as the boundaries exist on March 20, 2006.
(7)   Every resident of the Town shall have the standing to enforce the maximum building height limits and the maximum allowable square footage established in paragraphs (1), (2) and (5), above, of this section of the Charter, by means of a suit in equity seeking either mandamus; prohibition; or any combination thereof, but nothing in this provision of the Charter shall he construed to either create a cause of action at law for money damages, or to authorize a court of equity to award money damages as an incident to equitable relief, or to authorize an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party or to any other party.
(8)   The maximum building height limit established in paragraph (1), above, of this section of the Charter, supersedes any existing zoning ordinance or land development regulation to the extent that said zoning ordinance or land development regulation establishes anywhere within the Town a maximum building height limit greater than that established in paragraph (1), above, of this section of the Charter, but nothing in this section of the Charter shall be construed to supersede, modify or repeal any existing zoning ordinance or land development regulation that establishes anywhere within the Town a maximum building height limit lower than that established in paragraph (1), above, of this section of the Charter.
(9)   The Town Commission may not increase, by ordinance or by variance, the maximum building height limits established in paragraphs (1) and (5), above, of this section of the Charter, nor may the Town Commission modify, amend or repeal, by ordinance or by variance, the restrictions on use established in paragraph (2), above, or the provisions for parking availability established in paragraphs (2), (3) or (5), above, of this section of the Charter, nor may the Town Commission increase, by ordinance or by variance, the maximum allowable square footage established in paragraph (5), above, of this section of the Charter. The maximum height limits established for residential zoning districts including, but not limited to, R-5, RS-4, RS-5, RD-10, RM-15, RM-16, RM-25 and PUD in the Town’s land development code as of March 20, 2006, may be increased, or such districts re-zoned for any other use whatsoever, only by a referendum vote of the registered voters of the Town in the manner established in Article IV, Section 4.7 [50] of this Charter for the repeal or amendment of initiated ordinances. The Town may not create new categories of zoning without approval of such categories by a similar referendum vote; and all provisions of such new categories of zoning must be submitted to the voters for approval.
(10)   The maximum building height limits established in paragraphs (1) and (5), above, of this section of the Charter, may be increased only by an amendment to or by repeal of this section of the Charter. The restrictions on use established in paragraph (2), above, and the provisions governing parking availability established in paragraphs (2), (3) and (5), above, of this section of the Charter, may be modified, amended or repealed only by an amendment to or by repeal of this section of the Charter. The maximum allowable square footage established in paragraph (5), above, of this provision of the Charter, may be increased only by an amendment to, or by repeal of this section of the Charter. Except as expressly provided below, this section of the Charter may be amended or repealed only by means of a majority vote of the registered voters of the Town at a referendum election held either on the same day as a regularly scheduled November general election or on the same day as a regularly scheduled March municipal general election. The amendment or repeal of this section of the Charter at a special election held on a day other than a regularly scheduled November general election or on a day other than a regularly scheduled March municipal general election is expressly prohibited, except that a special election or special election by mail may be held to correct, to the minimum practicable extent, a provision adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to violate the State or Federal Constitution or any valid state or federal law, but only after such adjudication is affirmed on appeal. Amendments approved at a special election may include no elements not directly related to such court adjudication.
(11)   These provisions of the Charter shall be effective immediately upon adoption by a majority of the registered voters of the Town voting in a referendum to amend the Charter so as to include these provisions. Upon adoption, the maximum building height limits, the restrictions on use, the maximum allowable square footage and the provisions governing parking availability established in paragraphs (1), (2, (3) and (5), above, of this section of the Charter, shall immediately apply to all real property located within the boundaries of the entire Town. Upon adoption of these provisions, and pending amendment of any portion or portions of the Town’s Code of Ordinances inconsistent with this section of the Charter, the more stringent provisions of this section shall apply.

The Futures says Bert J Harris is coming in a few weeks….HOLY SMOKES!….http://www.florida-eminent-domain.com/private-property-act.html

The confusion over the Charter…the Code…the grade…the 100 year flood plain…the coastal construction control line…http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/publications/tech-rpt.htm

Depending on who is reading it…misreading it…and not taking the time to go to those who drew it up for the definitive answers…

This writer’s opinion…the only thing we can all agree on….. the Commission needs to direct the Manager to immediately place an ad in the FLOCites Datagram and other “clearinghouses” for a first rate Development Director….ASAP…

more to come……

Tags: heights, LBTS Agendas/Meetings, Local Politics, Scoops
Posted in Uncategorized