Res 24-91 RESOLUTION NO. 24-91
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY
BEACH, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 100 OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, ASSESSING COSTS
FOR ABATING NUISANCES UPON CERTAIN LAND(S) LOCATED WITHIN
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH AND PROVIDING THAT A NOTICE OF
LIEN SHALL ACCOMPANY THE NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT; SETTING
OUT ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH
ABATEMENT AND LEVYING THE COST OF SUCH ABATEMENT OF
NUISANCES; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR A DUE
DATE AND INTEREST ON ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE
RECORDING OF THIS RESOLUTION, AND DECLARING SAID LEVY TO
BE A LIEN UPON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR UNPAID ASSESS-
MENTS.
WHEREAS, the City Manager or his designated representative has,
pursuant to Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances, declared the exis-
tence of a nuisance upon certain lots or parcels of land, described in
the list attached hereto and made a part hereof, for violation of the
provisions of Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 100.20, 100.21 and 100.22 of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, the City Manager or his
designated representative has inspected said land(s) and has determined
that a nuisance existed in accordance with the standards set forth in
Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances, and did furnish the respective
owner(s) of the land(s) described in the attached list with written
notice of public nuisance pursuant to Sections 100.20, 100.21 and 100.22
of the Code of Ordinances describing the nature of the nuisance(s) and
sent notice that within ten (10) days from the date of said notice
forty-two (42) days in the case of violation of Section 100.04 pertain-
ing to seawalls) they must abate said nuisance, or file a written
request for a hearing to review the decision that a nuisance existed
within ten (10) days from the date of said notice, failing which the
City of Delray Beach would proceed to correct this condition by abating
such nuisance, and that the cost thereof would be levied as an assess-
ment against said property; and,
WHEREAS, the property owner(s) named in the list attached
hereto and made a part hereof 'did fail and neglect to abate the
nuisance(s) existing upon their respective lands or to properly request
a hearing pursuant to Section 100.21 and 100.22 within the time limits
prescribed in said notice and Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances, or
if the property owner(s) did request and receive a hearing, said prop-
erty owner(s) failed and/or neglected to abate such nuisance(s) within
the time designated at the hearing wherein a decision was rendered
adverse to the property owner(s); and,
WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach, through the City Administra-
tion or such agents or contractors hired by the City Administration was
therefore required to and did enter upon the land(s) described in the
list attached and made a part hereof and incurred costs in abating the
subject nuisance(s) existing thereon as described in the notice; and,
WHEREAS, the City Manager of the City of Delray Beach has,
pursuant to Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray
Beach, submitted to the City Commission a report of the costs incurred
in abating said nuisance(s) as aforesaid, said report indicating the
costs per parcel of land involved; and,
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach,
pursuant to Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances desires to assess the
cost of said nuisance(s) against said property owner(s),
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That assessments in the individual amounts as shown
by the report of the City Manager of the City of Delray Beach, involving
the City's cost of abating the aforesaid nuisances upon the lots or
parcels of land described in said report, a copy of which is attached
hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby levied against the parcel(s)
of land described in said report and in the amount(s) indicated thereon.
Said assessments so levied shall, if not paid within thirty (30) days
after mailing of the notice described in Sec. 3, become a lien upon the
respective lots and parcel(s) of land described in said report, of the
same nature and to the same extent as the lien for general city taxes
and shall be collectible in the same manner as mortgages and fore-
closures are under state law.
Section 2. That such assessments shall be legal, valid and
binding obligations upon the property against which said assessments are
levied.
Section 3. That the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach is
hereby directed to immediately mail by first class mail to the owner(s)
of the property, as such ownership appears upon the records of the
· County Tax Assessor, notice(s) that the City Commission of the City of
Delray Beach on the 9th day of April, 1991, has levied an
assessment against said property for the cost of abatement of said
.- nuisance by the City, and that said assessment is due and payable within
thirty (30) days after the mailing date of said notice of assessment,
after which a lien shall be placed on said property, and interest will
accrue at the rate of 8% per annum, plus reasonable attorney's fees and
other costs of collecting said sums. A Notice of Lien shall be mailed,
along with the Notice of Assessment and this resolution.
Section 4. That this resolution shall become effective thirty
(30) days from the date of adoption and the assessment(s) contained
herein shall become due and payable thirty (30) days after the mailing
date of the notice of said assessment(s), after which a lien shall be
placed on said property(s), and interest shall accrue at the rate of
eight (8) percent per annum plus, if collection proceedings are
necessary, the costs of such proceedings including a reasonable
attorney's fee.
Section 5. That in the event that payment has not been
received by the City Clerk within thirty (30) days after the mailing
date of the notice of assessment, the City Clerk is hereby directed to
record a certified copy of this resolution in the public records of Palm
Beach County, Florida, and upon the date and time of recording of the
certified copy of this resolution a lien shall become effective on the
subject property which shall secure the cost of abatement, interest at
the rate of 8%, and collection costs including a reasonable attorney's
fee.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the 9th day
ATTEST:
Cfty ~ler~ /
- 2 - Res. No. 24-91
COST OF ABATING NUISANCES UNDER CHAPTER 100
OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION OWNER ASSESSMENT
LOT 24, BLK C, RIDGEWOOD TONY PARRISH $ 25.00
HEIGHTS, DELRAY, PB 14, P 44, 591 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY 50.00 (ADM. COST)
PUBLIC RECORDS, PALM BEACH DEERFIELD BCH, FL. 33441 (RECORDING)
COUNTY, FL.
(16631 SW 7TH AVENUE)
LOTS 23 TO 28, INC., BLK 5, TITF/STATE OF FLORIDA $ 223.00
SOUTHRIDGE, PB 13, P 38, FORMER MURPHY ACT LAND 50.00 (ADM. COST)
PUBLIC RECORDS, PALM BEACH C/O TRACY PETERS,PLANNER, (RECORDING)
COUNTY, FL. BUREAU LAND MGT.SERV.DIV.
(SW 8TH AVENUE) OF STATE LANDS - MARJORY
STONEMAN DOUGLAS BUILDING
3900 COMMONWEALTH BLVD.
TALLAHASSEE, FL. 32399
LOTS 14 TO 16 INC., BLK 1, ESTERVINA MOREDA $1075.00
~SOUTHRIDGE, PB 13, P 38, P.O. BOX 1953 50.00 (ADM. COST)
PUBLIC RECORDS, PALM BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FL. 33447 (RECORDING)
COUNTY, FL.
(REIGLE AVENUE)
LOTS 17 TO 20 INC., BLK 1, ESTERVINA MOREDA $1110.00
SOUTHRIDGE, PB 13, P 38, P.O. BOX 1952 50.00 (ADM. COST)
PUBLIC RECORDS, PALM BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FL. 33447 (RECORDING)
COUNTY, FL.
(REIGLE AVENUE)
LOTS 56 TO 58 INC., SUNSET MANUEL MOREDA $ 411.00
PARK, DELRAY, PB 12, P 65, MANUEL E. MOREDA 50.00 (ADM. COST)
PUBLIC RECORDS, PALM BEACH P.O. BOX 1953 (RECORDING)
COUNTY, FL. DELRAY BEACH, FL. 33447
(REIGLE AVENUE)
LOTS 23 & 24, BLK 1, MT. MORIAN AFRICAN METH. $ 90.00
SOUTHRIDGE, PB 13, P 38, EPISCOPAL CHURCH 50.00 (ADM. COST)
PUBLIC RECORDS, PALM BEACH 632 SW 17TH COURT (RECORDING)
COUNTY, FL. BOCA RATON, FL. 33432
(SW 4TH AVENUE)
E'LY225.4' OF N300' OF S330' D.E. & ANNIE B. GERMAN $ 161.00
OF SE 1/4, SEC 12-46-42, (H&W) 50.00 (ADM. COST)
PUBLIC RECORDS, PALM BEACH 14675 VIA FLORA (RECORDING)
COUNTY, FL. DELRAY BEACH, FL. 33484
(BRANDON DRIVE)
W 1/2 OF LOT 12, A.J. JOHNSON LAURA W. STEPHENS $ 53.00
SUB., PB 20, P 57, PUBLIC ANTONY. FOSTER 50.00 (ADM. COST)
RECORDS, PALM BEACH COUNTY,FL. 100 93RD ST. W. APT. 9E (RECORDING)
(NW 1ST STREET) NEW YORK CITY, NY 10025
-3- Res. No. 24-91
LOT 19, BLK 1, ODMANN'S SUB., O.W.& MILDRED BURROUGHS $ 59.00
PB 4, P 53, PUBLIC RECORDS, 243 BILBOA STREET 50.00 (ADM. COST)
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL. ROYAL PALM BCH,FL. 33411 (RECORDING)
(NW 13TH AVENUE)
S5' OF LOT 1 & N71.5' OF SYLVIA SCHUPLER TRUST $ 58.00
LOT 2, BLK 30, TOWN OF DELRAY, 3101 WASHINGTON ROAD 50.00 (ADM. COST)
PB 1, P 3, PUBLIC RECORDS, WEST PALM BCH, FL. 33405 (RECORDING)
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL.
(SW 5TH AVENUE)
LOT 23, BLK 23, TOWN OF GRACE BARNETT $ 59.00
DELRAY, PB 10, P 69, PUBLIC 1401 39TH STREET 50.00 (ADM. COST)
RECORDS, PALM BEACH COUNTY,FL. WEST PALM BCH, FL. 33407 (RECORDING)
(SW 3RD STREET)
W35' OF LOT 25, BLK 17, RESUB. MILDRED BURNS $ 26.50
OF BLK 17, DELRAY BEACH, 330 NW 7TH AVENUE 25.00 (ADM. COST)
PB 21, P 90, PUBLIC RECORDS, DELRAY BEACH, FL. 33444 (RECORDING)
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL.
(NW 4TH AVENUE)
~W50' OF LOT 26, BLK 17, RESUB. MILDRED BURNS $ 26.50
OF BLK 17, DELRAY BEACH, 330 NW 7TH AVENUE 25.00 (ADM. COST)
PB 21, P 90, PUBLIC RECORDS, DELRAY BEACH, FL. 33444 (RECORDING)
· PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL.
(NW 4TH AVENUE)
N58' OF S312.12' OF E135' OF IVERSON LASTER $ 58.00
E135' OF BLK 10, TOWN OF 511 NW 2ND STREET 50.00 (ADM. COST)
DELRAY, PB 1, P 3, PUBLIC DELRAY BEACH, FL. 33444 (RECORDING)
RECORDS, PALM BEACH COUNTY,FL.
(NW 6TH AVENUE)
LOT 259, TROPIC ISLE 3RD EMILIO & ALICE GIANARELLI $ 40.00
SECTION, PB 25, P 37, PUBLIC (H&W) C/O RAY PECOR 50.00 (ADM. COST)
RECORDS, PALM BEACH COUNTY,FL. 940 FERN DRIVE (RECORDING)
(EVERGREEN DRIVE) DELRAY BEACH, FL. 33483
LOT 217, TROPIC ISLE 2ND THEODORE AMARODIDIS $ 60.00
SECTION, PB 24, P 246, PUBLIC 7491 N FED. HWY. ~C5 50.00 (ADM. COST)
RECORDS, PALM BEACH COUNTY,FL. BOCA RATON, FL.33487-1602 (RECORDING)
(964 CYPRESS DRIVE)
LOT 50, POINCIANA HEIGHTS OF TILLIE NELSON $ 30.00
DELRAY BEACH, PB 26, P 245, 219 NW 10TH AVENUE 50.00 (ADM. COST)
PUBLIC RECORDS, PALM BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FL. 33444 (RECORDING)
COUNTY, FL.
(1001 NW 3RD TERRACE)
S80.26' OF LOT 4/LESS W550', WILLIAM A.& ELIZABETH $ 32.00
BEACH LOTS DELRAY, NOW KNOWN B. PERRY (H&W) 50.00 (ADM. COST)
AS: lOT 4 (LESS W550' & 38 HIGH AVENUE (RECORDING)
N80.4'), CREGO SUB. AMEND NYACK, NY 10960
PLAT 3, PUBLIC RECORDS, PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FL.
(316 NORTH OCEAN BLVD~
-4- Res. No. 24-91
LOT 9 & N29.5' OF LOT 10 OF CURTIS L.& MARY A.HANNA $ 42.00
N 1/2 OF BLK 38, TOWN OF (H&W) 50.00 (ADM. COST)
DELRAY, PB 11, P 54, PUBLIC 210 SW 3RD AVENUE (RECORDING)
RECORDS, PALM BEACH COUNTY,FL. DELRAY BEACH, FL. 33444
(304 SW 1ST STREET)
S 1/2 OF LOT 13 & LOT 14, PAUL PIAZZOLLA JR. $ 58.00
BLK 70 (OLD SCHOOL SQUARE 3701 N. DIXIE HIGHWAY 50.00 (ADM. COST)
HISTORIC DISTRICT), TOWN OF POMPANO BEACH, FL.33064 (RECORDING)
DELRAY, NOW KNOWN AS: SUNDY &
CROMER AMEND PL., PUBLIC
RECORDS, PALM BEACH COUNTY,FL.
(130-132 SE lST AVENUE)
ALL OF PLAT, OCEAN CAY OF TWO TWENTY TWO DELRAY $193.00
DELRAY, PB 50, P 59, PUBLIC PROPERTIES INC. 50.00 (ADM. COST)
RECORDS, PALM BEACH COUNTY,FL. 6550 N. OCEAN BLVD. /#7 (RECORDING)
(218 NORTH OCEAN BLVD.) OCEAN RIDGE, FL. 33435
LOT 12, BLK 1, ODMANN'S SUB., MARIH HAYES EST. $ 59.00
PB 4, P 53, PUBLIC RECORDS, C/O WILLIE R.GOODMAN JR. 50.00 (ADM. COST)
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL. 123 GARFIELD AVENUE
(20 NW 13TH AVENUE) TRENTON, NJ 08609
LOT 19 (LESS 1-95 R/W AS IN ORA MITCHELL $ 24.00
OR 2128,P 1916) BLK 3, 41 SW 14TH AVENUE 50.00 (ADM. COST)
°ODMANN'S SUB., PB 4, P 53, DELRAY BEACH, FL. 33444 (RECORDING)
PUBLIC RECORDS, PALM BEACH
COUNTY, FL.
(42 SW 14TH AVENUE)
LOT 25, BLK 2, CARVER PARK, T.L. & CORNELIA WILSON $ 47.00
PB 27, P 55, PUBLIC RECORDS, (H&W) 50.00 (ADM. COST)
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL. 1412 SW 3RD STREET (RECORDING)
(1412 SW 3RD STREET) DELRAY BEACH, FL. 33444
W80' OF E440' OF LOT 6, J.L. & MAUREEN MAAS $226.00
LAMBERT TRAILER COURT, PB 22, (H&W) 50.00 (ADM. COST)
P 41, PUBLIC RECORDS, PALM 3825 LONE PINE ROAD (RECORDING)
BEACH COUNTY, FL. DELRAY BEACH, FL. 33445
(SE 12TH ROAD)
W50' OF S150' OF BLK 18, TOWN LONNIE & PHYLLIS DURHAM $ 40.00
OF DELRAY, PB 1, P 3, PUBLIC (H&W) 50.00 (ADM. COST)
RECORDS, PALM BEACH COUNTY,FL. 521 NW 2ND STREET (RECORDING)
(NW 6TH AVE & NW 2ND ST) DELRAY BEACH, FL. 33444
VIOLATION IS: SEC. 100.01 LAND TO BE KEPT FREE OF DEBRIS, VEGETATION,
MATTER CONSTITUTING HAZARDS; DECLARED NUISANCE.
-5- Kes. No. 24-91
EXHIBIT "A"
REVIEW COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT AS PREPARED BY THE COUNTYWIDE PLANNING COUNCIL
Prepared by: David J. Kovacs, Director
Department of Planning and Zoning
City of Delray Beach
Review and Comment by: Planning and Zoning Board as the municipal
Local Planning Agency (LPA)
* March 18, 1991
Review and Adoption by: City Commission as the Governing Body
City of Delray Beach - * March 26, 1991
(*) indicates tentative consideration date
Reference Document: Countywide Future Land Use Element (CFLUE)
pages i thru vi, pages 7 through 57, and appendices included
in the bound document.
paqe iii - change Dan Richter to Wm. F. Andrews
page 8 B. DEVELOPMENT OF THE COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
The third paragraph on page 8 concludes that the CFLUE is "a
composite of local government plans ...". While this
conclusion may be accurate with respect to Land Use Map
designations, it is not accurate with respect to policies.
This paragraph should be revised to clearly distinguish
between the processes use for the Map and for the policy
statements.
page 11 A. MAPPED INTERJURISDICTIONAL INCOMPATIBILITIES
A situation regarding map intergovernmental incompatibilities
(lis) which has heretofore not been addressed is that which
occurs upon annexations. The ii process looked only at
adjacent land uses between municipalities. Upon annexation,
the municipal boundary shifts. An adjacent land use situation
involving a ii may now occur -- it may have previously existed
but was not recognized due to it being "within" a single
jurisdiction. This situation may need to be addressed in the
CFLUE.
Also, the list of incompatibilities is provided in an
appendix. Direction is given that the CWPC will monitor
compliance with "future actions". It is suggested that the
list of incompatibilities be reduced by eliminating those
iis which are created by the lack of a municipality taking a
definitive action at this point in time i.e., (see page BS) a
respondent's "No incompatibility at this time" (my emphasis)
should not warrant further monitoring by the CWPC.
P&Z Staff Reb~ ~t
Proposed Countywide Future Land Use Element As Prepared By The
Countywide Planning Council
Page 2
page 15 Table 2
The information contained in this Table re. "Name of Map
Overlay" is incorrect with respect to the City of Delray Beach.
Also refer to Appendix C re. the following:
C6 CRA Areas - the CRA Plan is not a part of the City's
Future Land Use Map.
C7 County Enclaves - this map showed previous conditions.
The enclaves have since been annexed. Only two areas are
depicted as such on the City's Future Land Use Map. The
City's Future Land Use Map, however, does show
designations upon land within its urban service area
which is presently under County land use Jurisdiction.
C8 The map shown is from a background document and is not a
part of the adopted map series. The Future Land Use Map
does show "redevelopment areas" but they are not as shown
on C8.
The City does have a "Large Scale Mixed Use" category and a
"Mixed Use" category. Both are shown on the City's Future Land
Use Map.
page 17 Common Classification System:
This definition refers to representing the "maximum" density.
Some classifications also refer to "minimum" densities. The
inclusion of a "minimum" may create a ii. e.g., a designation
of 0-1 may be inconsistent with a a designation of 3.5-5 even
though each is less than 5 d.u. per acre. The existence of
"minimums" was not addressed when lis were assessed. Also see
page 26.
page 18 Concurrent:
This definition is more restrictive than that allowed by DCA.
So that there is not a problem in interpretation, or
application, of a more restrictive use reference should be
made to the DCA rule and/or as defined in local plans.
page 23 Urban Service Area:
This definition is inadequate. As written, would an area which
received service at a greater than minimum level of service not
be an urban service area? The definition should refer to a
geographically delineated area.
P&Z Staff Re.p~_ t
Proposed Countywide Future Land Use Element As Prepared By The
Countywide Planning Council
Page 3
page 23 Urban Sprawl:
Given the controversy as to what constitutes "urban sprawl",
suggest that a definition not be included. In the alternative,
it should be identified as a "term" or "concept" with reference
to the DCA Technical Memo on the subject.
page 25 Policy 1.1.3
"reviewing the land use planning of all local governments.."
involves a very general concept ... does it mean zoning, site
plan approvals, capital improvement programming? A better
choice of words is necessary.
page 25 Policy 1.1.5
See previous comment re. page 11
page 27 Policy 1.2.5
This is a "pass through" policy. This and similar "pass
through" policies should be grouped together; thus, providing
easier application of the CFLUE document.
page 29 Policy 1.3.7
"shall prevail" - as written, this policy could mean that if
one part of a Plan is not certified then the entire Plan or
Element shall be superseded by the CFLUE. I don't believe
this situation was intended, but that only the inconsistent
policy would be prevailed upon. The policy should be so
rewritten.
page 29 Policy 1.4.3
"availability of land suitable for utility facilities" is
handled as a pass-through. Some facilities such as landfills
and water wellfields which have multijurisdictional impacts
may require more activity from the CWPC. A clear definition of
the role of the CWPC in such situations is needed.
page 30 Policy 1.5.5
The phrase "to govern" is inappropriate. Actually, the policy
is inappropriate. It represents an administrative activity of
the CWPC. It is not necessary to have it stated as a policy in
a CFLUE. Further, it raises an unwarranted "flag".
P&Z Staff
Proposed Countywide Future Land Use Element As Prepared By The
Countywide Planning Council
Page 4
page 30 Policy 1.7.2
This is a rather weak statement as to handling "urban sprawl".
This is a subject wherein the CWPC should examine the specific
policies set forth in individual local plans, seek out any iis,
and take a position if one is warranted. If not warranted,
then make a statement to that effect.
page 31 Policy 1.7.4
This policy is actually a way of addressing "urban sprawl". As
such it is contrary to Policy 1.7.2. Also, it is inappropriate
to single out "traditional town planning" as a "growth
management tool". At best, such planning may result in
"leapfrog urban sprawl" (DCA).
page 31 Policy 1.7.5
This policy should end after the word "redevelopment". The
phrase "shall favor development" is inappropriate. Is this
meant to say that if there is a ii created during a plan
amendment proceeding and it is the result of one unit of
government seeking a high density or intensity use, that the
CWPC "shall favor development" created by the higher
intensity?
page 31 Policy 1.7.6
If there is not "broad citizen participation" is it the CWPC's
position that they will not support downtown centers? This
policy is poorly written.
page 31 Policy 1.7.8
Requiring a R/UDAT by having an adopted policy is
inappropriate. This is an administrative item. What is the
real subject of this policy?
page 31 Policy 1.7.9
This policy should be deleted or significantly redrafted.
First, the reference to a R/UDAT should be deleted.
"Establishing guidelines for determining where urban growth
is appropriate" seems inappropriate for the CWPC given its
position in Policy 1.7.2. Again, this is an item for the CWPC
work program. It does not need to be included in the CFLUE as a
"policy".
P&Z Staff R~_. t
Proposed Countywide Future Land Use Element As Prepared By The
Countywide Planning Council
Page 5
page 32 Objective 2.1
The CWPC cannot set a L.O.S.. The CFLUE should not set a
L.O.S. for traffic. The wording of this Objective seems
misdirected. It would be more appropriate to focus upon a
ii between the Countywide Traffic Performance Standards
Ordinance (hence the County's Traffic Element) and land use
planning and desired Traffic L.O.S. in municipal plans.
page 33 GOAL 3
This GOAL and its supporting policies seems inappropriate for
the CFLUE. Again, this topic - affordable housing - may best
be addressed by the CWPC by seeing how each municipality has
addressed the item and identifying tis - then establishing a
policy which resolves the its.
page 34 Policy 4.1.5
Use of the word "each" when referring to local governments
seems inappropriate. Consideration of "appropriate" may be
more appropriate.
page 35 Policy 5.2.1
Policies like this do not seem to have a basis in the CFLUE.
How will the CWPC involve itself in the implementation and/or
follow through of the policy? The CWPC should not even know
when a local government is pursuing construction of a jetty
unless it first involves an amendment to a local plan.
General Comment on Remaining Policies
Those remaining policies which do not apply to 9J5 items nor to
land use considerations seem to be in appropriate for inclusion
in the CFLUE. It seems more appropriate to have a separate
document of CWPC "encourage" policy statements and a separate
"work program". The scope of these policies goes beyond the
normal content of a Land Use Element. Finally, many of the
subject areas such as "urban sprawl", "annexation", "affordable
housing" should be addressed on an topic-by-topic basis with
reference to the contents of local plans. IIs should be
identified and mitigating policies or programs then adopted.
Thus, as presented I recommend rejection of the policies
contained in the CFLUE.
P&Z Staff Rep, 't
Proposed Countywide Future Land Use Element As Prepared By The
Countywide Planning Council
Page 6
page 48 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
B2 Does a standard of not creating any new lis conflict with other
policies which call for "favoring development in urban service
areas", directing land uses, etc.? How will the CWPC handle having
to reject a land use amendment which further desires policies but
would also create a ii? Perhaps, a weighing of policies against
this standard is appropriate just as the Growth Management Act
allows for a weighing of policies which are being met against those
with which a proposed action conflicts.
B3 Is not the phrase "not to exceed" better than "equal"?
B5 This standard could conflict with B2. When two standards
conflict ... what happens?
B6 This is not a performance standard. It assumes that
development review and permitting processes are not streamlined
in some municipalities. This "standard" reads like a "policy".
Bll These "standards" dealing with Natural Resources of
Multijurisdictional Significance seem to be an imposition of
Countywide standards which are best accommodated through the
referendum process available to home rule Counties. This
performance standard should be eliminated.
ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION
I cannot support endorsement of the Draft CFLUE. Besides
some incorrect data, some inappropriate policies, and the need to
rewrite several policies, the document is not clear in
differentiating between what the CFLUE is and what CWPC policies
and administrative work items are.
Ad,~ tum to Exhibit "A" of Resolution No. 20 ~1
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
DATE: MARCH 25, 1991
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION RE PBCWPC - CFLUE
OBJECTION TO PROCEDURAL RULE PROPOSAL
In addition to the previously provided material regarding Agenda
Item 9 - O (meeting of March 26th), I also request that the City
Commission take a formal action opposing the following aspect of
the proposed procedural rules.
IV. APPLICATIONS FOR EXCEPTIONS TO THE ADOPTED LEVEL OF SERVICE
E. Application and Consultant Fees
1. There will be a fixed $250.00 fee for processing
the application. This amount is fifty percent of
the estimated cost to the Planning Council.
2. The Planning Council may retain the consulting
services of a traffic engineer to assist with the
review of GAE and CRALLS applications.
The Planning Council's Executive Director will
estimate the consultant fees based on the
requirements of each application. The applicant
will provide, along with the application, funds
sufficient to cover the estimated consultant fees.
These funds will be placed in the project's
individual account. The Planning Council will pay
the consultant directly from the funds provided by
the applicant. The Planning Council will
expeditiously refund to the applicant all
remaining funds after the consultant has been paid
in full. All interest earned will accrue to Palm
Beach County.
~Page 2 of A, ndum to Exhibit "A" of Resolution No. .91
To: David H~~ ~n, City Manager
Re: Additiona~ Consideration Re PBCWPC - CFLUE
Objection To Procedural Rule Proposal
Page 2
Basis for Opposition:
Re: E.1 The applicant is a local unit of government. Past
practice has been for units of government to exempt one another
from processing fees which are associated with ad valorem
expenditures. We have waived fees on requests of Palm Beach
County. It is not appropriate to charge local governments for
the processing of a GAE application since, that entity's
residents are already supporting the CWPC through ad valorem
revenues.
Re: E.2 The requirement for a local unit of government to
reimburse CWPC consultants is not appropriate. There are a few
factors at play here. They include:
A. The applicant (City) has retained a traffic consultant
to prepare the work and the County Engineering Department
has traffic expertise to review the work. While the concept
of having an "independent" consultant available to assist
the CWPC Staff in evaluation and potential conflict
resolution, that consultant should be a normal recurring
expense of the CWPC just as the CWPC staff is.
B. If the CWPC is directly responsible for the payment of
its support consulting services, it may be more conservative
in the use of that service than would occur if the service
were a "pass-through" cost.
Request Action:
By motion: That the Delray Beach City Commission opposes the
imposition of application and consultant fees upon local units of
government who must apply for a GAE designation.
c: Alison McGregor-Harty, City Clerk
DJK/#77/CCSUP.TXT
Board of County Con doners County Administrator
Karen T. Marcus, Chair Jan V~'inters
Carole Phillips, Vice Chair
Carol A. Roberts
Carol J. Elmquist
Mary McCarty ~
Ken Foster /'~2~"/N
April 25,1991
Ms. Alison MacGregor Harty
City of Delray Beach
100 N.W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
RE: Resolution #23-91
Dear Ms. Harty:
Thank you for sending a copy of the above-referenced resolution.
This resolution will be forwarded to County Administration to be
placed on the Board of County Commissioners agenda at the earliest
possible date.
If I or my staff can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to
telephone us at 276-1310 in south county or 355-2205 in West Palm Beach.
Sincerely,
Carole Phillips
County Commissioner
District 5
CP/bg
cc: Connie Tolliver, County Administration
"An Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action Employer"
BOX 1989 WESI PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402-1989
~c~ prmted on recycled paper
Board of County Cor doners County Administrator
Karen T. Marcus, Chair Jan W'inters
Carole Phillips, Vice Chair
Carol A. Roberts
Carol J. Elmquist
Mary McCarty ~
Ken Fos.ter /'V~q _~
April 25, 1991
Ms. Alison MacGregor Harry, City Clerk
City of Delray Beach
100 N.W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Dear Ms. Harry:
Thank you for sending me a copy of your Resolution 23-91
transmitting the City's comments on the proposed Countywide Future
Land Use Element and expressing, once again, its full endorsement
of the Municipal League's position.
I have forwarded your Resolution to County Administration with
a request that it can be placed on the next available Board agenda
to be received and filed into the official records.
If I may be of further assistance in any way, please don't
hesitate to contact me.
Kare~T. Marcus, Chair
BOard of County Commissioners
KTM/pw
cc(w/enc): Connie Tolliver
County Administration
"An Equal ()pportunit5- ..\ffirmative Action t(mphLver"
BOX 1989 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA t1402-1989
~ printed on recycled paper
Board of County Co~r sioners County Administrator
Karen T. Marcus, Chair Jan Winters
Carole Phillips, Vice Chair
Carol A. Roberts
Carol J. Elmquist
Mary McCarty
Ken Foster
Maude Ford Lee
May 7, 1991
Alison MacGregor Harty
City Clerk
City of Delray Beach
100 NW First Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Dear Ms Harty:
This letter acknowledges receipt of the following resolutions:
1. Resolution No. 23-91 transmitting its comments on the proposed
Countywide Future Land Use Element, and
2. Resolution No. 27-91 urging Governor Chiles to reconsider the
proposed state-wide budget reductions for public education.
The Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners officially
received and filed the resolutions at the May 7th Board meeting.
A copy of Resolution No. 23-91 was forwarded to the County's
Planning, Zoning and Building Director.
Sincerely,
Connie Tolliver
Agenda Coordinator
cc: Kris Kern, Executive Director, PZ&B
"An Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action Employer"
BOX 1989 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402-1989
printed on rec¥cled paper (407) 355-2030
Suncom (407) 273-2030