Adjustment Hearing Case Files_Golden City S. Ocean Blvd._20141119_37015 TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
DECISION ON PETITION FOR VARIANCE
Petition No. 37015 Public Hearing Date: November 19,2014
Town Code Section 30-64 (a) and Table 30-2, that requires a maximum building
height of 35 feet in residential multiple family low density (RML)zoning district
Petitioner: Golden City Highland Beach LLC
Property Address: South Ocean Blvd. (a.k.a.)Golden City
In the above numbered Petition, by vote as shown in the official minutes and recorded on
the form, it was determined and ordered that the requested variance be granted [ ];
denied [ X ]; granted subject to the following conditions and safeguards [ ]:
In reaching its decision and order, the Board has found/has not found in the case of the
above numbered Petition that:
1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure
or building involved, and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings
in the same district.
2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the action of the
applicant.
3. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by the ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district.
4. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant
of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the
ordinance, and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant.
5. The reasons set forth in the applicant's petition justify the granting of the variance,
and the variance granted is the minimum reasonable variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of land, structure or building.
6. Granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
ordinance, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the
public welfare.
Chapter 30, Zoning Code/Article III; Sec. 30-40(h): A variance, when implemented in
accordance with the approval granted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall run
with the land in perpetuity. Unless a lesser time is approved by the Board of Adjustment
and Appeals, a variance that is not implemented shall expire eighteen (18) months
following approval. Extensions of variance approvals shall not be granted by the Board
of Adjustment and Appeals.
Town of Highland Beach
Board of Adiustment and Anneals Page 2
Decision on South Ocean Blvd. (a.k.a. Golden City) Golden City Highland Beach, LLC-
Relief from Highland Beach Code of Ordinances Section 30-64(a) and Table 30-2, that
requires a maximum building height of 35 feet in residential multiple family low density
(RML)zoning district.
SIGNATURES WRITE "FOR" `AGAINST" PETITION
Barry Donaldson, Chair Ria)X S�
Barry Axelrod,Vice Chair 149 19S9710—
Evelyn
9 5971Evelyn Weiss, Secretary
Bryan Perilman, Member
Joel Leinson, Member 4-t f
Peter Rodis, Member
William Weitz, Member
�/ ` l� Date: t l�� l g
Attest. CJS-�C-�--
cc: Building Official
I
Transmit Tq �.aie. a �e Town Clerk Date: October 10, 2014
Application No: 0 3 7 ® 1 Applicant/Owner: Golden City Highland Beach, LLC
Property Addres 1; t Wa i 2 r PCN#24-43-47-04-00-001-0030, Highland Beach, FL 33487
u
Submit Application: Board of Adjustment and Appeals
Application Type: Petition for Variance, proposed construction of a sixteen story multi-family
building in the RML (Residential Multi-Family Low Density) Zoning District
Description of Application:
Applicant is requesting relief from the Town of Highland Beach Zoning Ordinance, Section 30-64(a)
and Table 30-2. Maximum building height in RML zoning district is 35 feet.
THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE MATTER DATED October 10, 20141 AND
HEREBY CERTIFIES THAT THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN:
❑ Plans meet Town of Highland Beach Zoning and other governmental agencies requirements.
❑ Plans meet Town of Highland Beach Zoning requirements; however, approvals are pending with other
governmental agencies.
] Plans do not meet Town of Highland Beach Zoning requirements.
Recommendation:
The Highland Beach Code of Ordinances Section 30-64(a) Compliance. All buildings and structures
shall comply with the requirements of Table 30-2. Maximum building height in Multiple-Family--Low
Density (RML) is 35 feet.
P9TA WH 'EVER ACTION IS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE SUBJECT MATTER, i.e.,
S E U H G, TRANSMIT TO QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD, ETC.
Michael Desorc`,"B ing Official
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
CLERK'S OFFICE USE Oft K, Date Received: ( C 15
Date of Hearing/Regular Meeting: �l ��
4 ?014
• TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH
• * BOARD OFF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS
•• • 1E� � A CE PETITION
Petition# n n tt I Fees Paid/Receipt No.#
Date Set for Public a ip
i
Note: Ordinance No. ym—varna—nce Z Tor Appeal to Board of Adjustment&Appeals are$500.00.
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name:Golden City Highland Beach,LLC Phone:(831)334-5380 Fax:
Mailing Address: 2637 E.Atlantic Blvd.Box#26648,Pompano Beach,FL 33062
Email Address: sam@maxamgroupllc.com
AUTHORIZED AGENT
Name: Nathan E.Nason,Esq. Phone:(561)686-3307 Fax:{561)686-5442
Mailing Address:1645 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.,Suite 1200,West Palm Beach,FL 33401
Email Address: NNason@nasonyeager.com
The owner/authorized agent requests that a determination be made by the Board of Adjustment & Appeals of the
Town of Highland Beach for the following variance under section 30-64
of Chapter 30 of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Highland Beach. The description of the subject property is
as follows:
PROPERTY INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PETITION
Address:South Ocean Boulevard Subdivision:
PCN:24-43-47-04-00-001-0030 Lot Size: 7.35 acres
Zoning District: RML Present Use: Vacant Land
1. Present Structures(type):
None
2. The proposed use will be:
Multi-family residential building with sixteen floors.
3. If this petition is granted,the effect will be to(brief description—i.e.to reduce side yard from 7' to 2'):
Increase the authorized building height from 35'to 209'.
4. For a variance to be favorably considered,the Board must find that the following four requirements have
been met. After each paragraph,state fully your reasons justifying the granting of this variance:
(a) That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land,structure,or building
involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district;
Please see attached letter.
(b) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant;
Please see attached letter.
(c) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied
by this ordinance to other lands,buildings or structures in the same district;
Please see attached letter.
(d) That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of the rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance and would
work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant.
Please see attached letter.
5. Has any previous application or appeal been files within the last year in connection with these premises?
(YES) (NO) X If so,briefly state the nature of the application or appeal.
-s� S (Initial) The names and addresses of each property owner located within three hundred (300) feet of
the affected property, excluding property owned by the applicant has been provided. (Notification distances
shall be measured on an arc from the corners of the property.) (YES) X (NO)
3✓� (Initial) I, the petitioner, acknowledge that there will be additional expenses incurred for the certified
mailing of the public notices and the cost to publish the legal advertisement, which is separate from the Board of
Adjustment&Appeals application fee. (YES) X (NO)
2 1 P a g e
(Initial) I. the petitioner, has read the Town of l lighland Beach Code of Ordinances. Section 30-40:
Variances & Interpretations for code requirements. (YES) X (NO)
I give permission to the members of the Board of Adjustment & Appeals and staff to inspect the property
for the purpose of this application. I declare that all statements made herein are true, based upon the best
available information, and I understand that willful false statements and the like are misdemeanors of the
second degree under Section 837.06, Florida Statutes. Such willful false statements may jeopardize the
validity of my application or any decision issued thereon. I have fully read the information outlining the
Board procedures and application requirements. With this application, I am submitting the necessary
supporting materials listed.
***Owner must s �`� d a notarized letter attesting to same.***
Property Owner's Signature: Date: Oy Al� ty
si}Mu S� w
Authorized Agent Signature:. Date: —2__tel
Condo Assoc. Rep. Signature: Date:
STATE OF Gal
COUNTY OF _ Jl A &fu2—
On this day of < dl before me personally appeareJ51 'Q &AI -� to me
known to be the person who executed the foregoing instruments,and acknowledged that he executed the same as his
free act and deed.
ANDREA MCHONE
Commission*2056112
(SEAL) •: Notary Public-California z &Lj(—te�
Z Santa Cruz County
My Comm.Expires Jan 27,2018 Notary Public Signature
Received by the
�Town Clerk's Office:
Received By: �1 �C i��— Date: i c ( �
Date Public Notices Mailed: `C—
Date Legal Advertisement Published:
3 1 P a g e
I
C
TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH
' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS
The Board of Adjustment&Appeals of the Town of Highland Beach will conduct a Public Hearing
in the Town of Highland Beach Town Hall Complex located at 3614 S. Ocean Blvd., Highland
Beach, FL 33487 on Wednesday,November 19,2014 at 9:30 a.m. to consider the following:
REQUEST SUBMITTED BY GOLDEN CITY HIGHLAND BEACH, LLC
FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT SOUTH
OCEAN BOULEVARD (24-43-47-04-00-001-0030), HIGHLAND BEACH,
FL. REQUESTING THE FOLLOWING: APPLICATION#37015—RELIEF
FROM HIGHLAND BEACH CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTION 30-64(a),
AND TABLE 30-2,THAT REQUIRES A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
OF 35 FEET IN RESIDENTIAL MULITIPLE FAMILY LOW DENSITY
(RML)ZONING DISTRICT.
Application is available for public inspection at the Town Clerk's Office, 3614 S. Ocean Blvd.,
Highland Beach, Florida during normal business hours—Monday—Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30
PM. Any person who decides to appeal the decision made by the Board of Adjustment&Appeals
made at this meeting with respect to any matter considered,you will need a record of the proceedings
and, for such purposes, you may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based.
Valerie Oakes, CMC, Deputy Town Clerk
Published in the Palm Beach Post on Saturday,November 8, 2014
This notice to be mailed certified mail and return receipt on Monday, November 3,2014, to
property owners located within 300 feet of the of the affected property, excluding property
owned by the applicant.
ATTENTION: Condominium President and Property Manager
If a condominium with an association is to be included,written notice may be provided only to
the association president and the condominium's resident or property manager. Please post
this notice in an area (ex. bulletin board)visible to all residents for their viewing.
e
>ww
e
bra �
#,a
y+BfM'ji r04 N
w
244347p
s 40000,00
34 (,G ° o 1:2,257
0.orzs 0ozs
'^ 007 0 0.02 O.Os mi
11
0.08 pit
I
INN—
t § F
I-
t1
r
€ a a Pid' dww #�
ArW
FV
r€=
r
r
Aid a'l*P, ` Ra'. +x*
ye ,
:
� Y
t
u
r ..
s�
w
�r
zr
X.
f
11
` 11
.I
1I
r;
sr41
-rA
r
u
t7 ';
- zl4
4 �F �
0
U! ..
Y.
• J
fi� E
s 24434704
0000100300-'L -bo&
o ,:2.257
oozes o.ozs
01 0� o.os ro#
0.08 Am
s
1 �v
{
I
c:
a w t
i i u
y g f
J
At, IF 11
t a w is SFr x Z �•1�:ta f
w � !16 s
• � E i, �is �/fj
443470400410
v
030 p ,:2.257
��fr/. O 0.0125 0.025
(7/Lt'i p 0.05 Rp
0.02 004
0-08 kri
r .
, w
ih
s >
1 [
r:
i
ilk
y
"
l
w
s E
24434704000010030
44 � �► , �. �,�
34 7040000 1 00c�g
30
n 0.0125 0025
0 0.05
V�V 0.02 0.04
0.08 pp
w
�1
u
k
f {� SA
it
v
5 24434704000
X0030
e iii�' 1rfi� 0� 1:2,2570,0]25 0,025
0.04 0.05 n'ri
0.08
a;
}
f
t
R� f
P
' r
' W
x'
P ,
1
i
tee. w ..... ..
_ s 24434744
000
° A o
-0125 o 1:2,257
o .o2s
o.os m
0.02 0.04
1 0-08 Im
MASON YEAGER GERSON
WHITE &5
_LIOCE, P.A.
ATTORNEYS A'I' LAW AJUG
NATHAN NASON DIRECT DIAL:
(561)471-3505
E-MAIL ADDRESS: FAX NUMBER:
nliasoll@nasonyeager coin (561)537-7105
July 31, 2014
Beverly M. Brown
Town Clerk m
Town of Highland Beach
3614 S. Ocean Boulevard
Highland Beach, FL 33487
Re. Golden City Highland Beach, LLC
Request for Variance to Board of Adjustment and Appeals
Dear Ms. Brown:
Golden City Highland Beach, LLC ("Golden City") owns a 7.35-acre property located on the west
side of South Ocean Boulevard, Highland Beach, Florida, south of Highland Beach Town Hall
with PCN No. 24-43-47-04-00-001-0030 (the "Property"). See Aerial of the Property attached as
Exhibit"A". Golden City is requesting a variance from Section 30-64(a)of the Town of Highland
Beach (the "Town") Code of Ordinances ("Code")pertaining to building height.
Code Section Code Requirement Proposed
§ 30-64(a), and Maximum building height: Maximum building height:
Table 30-2 35 vertical feet 209 vertical feet
Section 30-40 of the Code details the criteria that must be met before a variance will be granted by
the Town's Board of Adjustment and Appeals(the"BOAR"). Pursuant to Section 30-40(e) of the
Code, the BOAA may grant a variance from the dimensional requirements of the zoning districts
if the following variance criteria are satisfied:
1) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or
building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in
the same zoning district.
SABADELL UNITED BANKTOWER
1645 PALM BEACH LAKES BOULEVARD-SUITE WOO-WEST PALM BEACH,FLORIDA 33401
TELEPHONE(5131)686-3307-FACSIMILE(561)686-5442
www.nasonyeager.com
� T
Beverly M. Brown
Town Clerk
July 31, 2014
Page 2
2) The special conditions and circumstances truly represent a hardship,and are not created by
any actions of the applicant.
3) Literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights
—' commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this
chapter and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant.
4) The grant of a variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied to
any other owner of land, buildings, or structures located in the same zoning district.
5) The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the use of the land,
building, or structure.
6) The grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this
chapter.
7) Financial hardship is not to be considered as sufficient evidence of a hardship in granting
a variance.
8) The grant of the variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental
to the public welfare
For the following reasons, Golden City respectfully requests that the BOAA determine that the
variance criteria found in Section 30-40(e) of the Code have been satisfied and Golden City is
entitled to a variance from Section 30-64(a)related to building height.
1) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure,
or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or
buildings in the same zoning district.
Special conditions and circumstances do exist which are peculiar to the Property and not shared
by other lands in the RML (Multi-family Residential — Low) zoning district. Under the RML
zoning district, the Property would be entitled to 45 residential units. The availability of 45
residential units was confirmed by the"Town.See Zoning Determination Letter attached as Exhibit
"B". Due to physical constraints on the Property, this variance seeks to maintain the density
permitted on the Property by increasing the building height to allow construction of the 45 units.
The Property is presently vacant. The Property is covered by approximately 90% wetlands,
including 2.00 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation and 4.58 acres of mangrove swamp. As a
.. result, only 0.77 acres of the Property are useable for development, or approximately 10%.
However, the Property did not historically have such a large wetland coverage. In 1964, the
_ Property contained a grid of mosquito ditches that served to drain the upland areas. Mosquito
ditches were utilized on the Property and throughout the surrounding areas as a means of
introducing salt water to, and draining fresh water from, the Property and surrounding properties
to prevent the reproduction of mosquitos. Through the 1970s and 1980s, mangrove coverage
Beverly M. Brown
Town Clerk
July 31, 2014
Page 3
increased significantly as a direct result of the mosquito ditches. Through the 1990s and 2000s,
the mangroves continued to grow, even as significant condominium development occurred to the
north and the south of the Property. See Composite of Aerials for the Property attached as Exhibit
44C99,
As a result of the wetland/mangrove growth on the Property over a period of nearly 50 years, the
buildable area on the Property has continually decreased. While Golden City has not obtained the
necessary environmental permits,it is anticipated that the vast majority of the wetlands/mangroves
will be preserved. The proposed project density per gross acre is only 12%, the minimum possible
given those constraints. The required preservation of mangroves severely limits the buildable area
on the property,thereby effectively reducing the density granted to the Property in the RML zoning
district.
The Town is mostly built-out. As a result, very little privately-owned land in the Town remains
undeveloped. Of that undeveloped land, only the Property experiences 90% wetland/mangrove
coverage. The Property is uniquely constrained as to buildable area due to the significant growth
of mangroves that occurred over the past 50 years.
The Property is further unique due to its physical characteristics. The Property is narrow and long
—rectangular shaped, The Property is approximately 278 feet wide and 1060 feet long. So on top
of the limitations placed on the Property due to the wetlands/mangrovcs,the Property's dimensions
place restrictions on how it can be developed.
Based on the significant coverage of wetlands/mangroves, and the unique physical dimensions of
the Property, it is clear that there arc special conditions and circumstances that apply to the
Property and not to other lands in the RML zoning district.
2) The special conditions and circumstances truly represent a hardship, and are not
created by any actions of the applicant.
The special conditions and circumstances on the Property, namely the significantly high
wetland/mangrove coverage and unique physical dimensions of the Property, truly represent a
hardship, not created by Golden City. As a result of the unusually large wetland/mangrove
coverage, nearly 90% of the allowable density on the Property is lost. The wetlands/man groves
are naturally occurring, and not caused by the actions of Golden City. In fact, over time, the
wetland/mangrove growth worsened. Importantly, under federal and state law, the Golden City
must obtain environmental permits for the proposed development, and the wetlands/mangroves
must be preserved.
i
Beverly M. Brown
Town Clerk
July 31, 2014
r
Page 4
The unique physical dimensions of the Property also represent a hardship. The narrow width of
the Property limit the type of development that can occur on the Property. Once the other
improvements to the Property are factored in(i.e.,parking, storm water management, landscaping,
access points, buffers, etc.), the buildable area becomes even smaller. The dimensions of the
Property have existed for decades, well before Golden City purchased the Property.
Golden City desires to build a high-end, luxury condominium project that will aim to market the
new units at 20% over current market offerings (between approximately $600 - $750/sq. ft.) and
penthouse/upper units at a premium (approximately $1,000/sq. ft.), which is in line with other
"— condominiums located in the RML zoning district. The type of owners and residents purchasing
units in the proposed condominium will be exclusive. The units will be large, appealing to
prestigious and wealthy buyers. The project will add value to the neighboring property owners,
i
and a significant tax base to the Town.
The RML zoning district is not intended for single-family or duplex style development. However,
single-family style residences is effectively all that could be built on the Property under the
applicable dimensional requirements of the Code. Therefore,the only option is to build upwards.
The buildable area limitations created by the wetlands/mangroves and the physical dimensions of
the Property represent a true hardship. The Property cannot feasibly be developed with such
physical constraints. The development limitations truly represent a hardship that justify the
requested variance.
3) Literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the
terms of this chapter and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the
applicant.
The literal interpretation and application of Section 30-64(a)and Table 30-2 would deprive Golden
City of the density commonly enjoyed by other properties in the RML zoning district, and would
work an unnecessary and undue hardship on Golden City. The density in the RML zoning district
is 6.0 units/acre which yields 45 residential units for the Property. However, the physical
._ constraints, in the form of the wetlands/mangroves and the dimensions of the Property, would not
permit Golden City to construct 45 residential units on the Property with only a 35-foot building
height limitation. With a limited footprint to build on, the only option is to go up.
Other properties within the RML zoning district construct residential buildings consistent with the
density allowable under the RML zoning district. In fact, the Property is surrounded to the north
_ and south by properties containing luxury condominiums greater than the height permitted by
Beverly M. Brown
Town Clerk
July 31, 2014
Page 5
Section 30-64(a). Directly to the north, the Toscana condominium is a luxury residential
development with three 17-story condominium towers. Further,to the south of the Property,there
is a 14-story condominium along the Intracoastal Waterway. See Exhibit A.
The two condominiums to the north and south were both initially entitled prior to the change in
building height restrictions approved by the Town in 1990. Still,condominiums with similar height
can be found all along Ocean Boulevard, including in the RML zoning district. "Therefore, other
properties enjoy benefits of increased building height simply because they were approved prior to
the enactment of the stricter dimensional requirements found in Sec. 30-64(a) of the Code.
The requested variance will allow Golden City to develop the Property utilizing the density
afforded in the RML zoning district, and at a height commonly enjoyed by other properties in the
zoning district and Town. To not be allowed to do so represents an undue and unnecessary
hardship, as more specifically described above.
4) The grant of a variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied
to any other owner of land,buildings,or structures located in the same zoning district.
The requested variance will not confer to Golden City any special privilege denied to any other
owner of land in the RML zoning district. Other property owners in the RML zoning district are
authorized to construct residential buildings with a density up to 6.0 units/acre, and do not have
the physical limitations experienced by the Property.
With the wetland coverage on the Property approaching 90%, the vast majority of the Property is
unusable. Also, the physical dimensions of the Property further inhibit the ability to build multi-
family residential units on the Property. Importantly, Golden City was unable to locate a single
privately-owned property in the RML zoning district that has such a significant reduction of
buildable area. Thus, there is no issue of precedent with the variance.
As noted above, numerous properties in the RML zoning district, and throughout the Town, have
building heights that exceed 35 feet. The type of high-end luxury,condominium Golden City will
propose is consistent with the other condominiums in the surrounding areas. In fact,the proposed
project will only benefit those communities,as property values will increase. The proposed project
will also bring significant economic impacts to the Town in the form of property taxes and buying
power of the residents and owners.
Therefore, the variance will provide Golden City with the same rights enjoyed by other Properties
in the RML zoning district. No special privilege would be conferred to Golden City by the award
of the variance.
Beverly M. Brown
Town Clerk
July 31, 2014
Page 6
5) The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the use of the
land,building, or structure.
The variance requested is the minimum variance that will make possible the use of the Property
consistent with the RML zoning district. The RML zoning district is not intended to be a single
family residential district. The lowest residential density in the Town is the RL zoning district,
which allows 1.45 units/acre. Without a variance, the density allowable on the Property would be
` less than allowed in the RE zoning district.
With the current buildable area, only eight units would be permitted. Eight units on a 7.35-acre
property is approximately 1.0 units/acre. This is an unreasonable restriction on the development
of the Property. Luxury condominiums are common along Ocean Boulevard in the Town in
proximity to the Property. The project's contemplated high-end units will attract prestigious and
wealthy customers.
Golden City seeks to maintain the exclusivity of living in the Town by proposing a project similar
in quality and caliber of the surrounding residences. To accomplish this, 209 feet is the minimum
to provide the product demanded of the selective clientele. The variance requested would provide
for a 16-story building with ground and second floor parking. The third story would contain two
units on one side, and the pool area on the other. Floors four through thirteen would contain four
units each. The fourteenth floor would contain two units, and the fifteenth floor would be a single
penthouse unit. The top floor is a mechanical roof. The total number of residential units would
be 45 units.
The floors of the building, including the mechanicals between the floors will be only 13 feet.
Sixteen stories yields 209 feet. This is commensurate with other nearby luxury condominium
projects.
The requested variance would allow the Property to be developed consistent with the intended
multi-family density permitted in the RML zoning district. It is the minimum variance needed to
allow the density of 6.0 units/acre to be realized.
6) The grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of
— this chapter.
The requested variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of Chapter 30 of the
Code. The RML zoning district was designated for the Property to remain consistent with the
Beverly M. Brown
Town Clerk
July 31, 2014
Page 7
surrounding properties. A 90% reduction of buildable area, and the current height restriction of
Section 30-64(a), is inconsistent with the intent and purpose of Chapter 30 of the Code.
With the area restrictions imposed by the wetlands/mangroves and unique physical dimensions of
the Property,the purpose and intent of Chapter 30 and the RML district cannot be satisfied. Section
30-2(d)of the Code provides that one purpose and intent of Chapter 30 is to"(p]rotect and conserve
the value of land, buildings, and improvements, and minimize conflicts among uses of land and
building."
To protect the value of the Property, under the RML zoning district, additional building height is
necessary. The Property is at a prime location on South Ocean Boulevard on the Intracoastal
Waterway. The proposed project would construct a luxury condominium on South Ocean
Boulevard and preserve and protect the wetlands/mangroves waterward of the building.
I
— On the other hand,to not grant the requested variance would create a conflict between the Property
and the surrounding areas. The properties to the north and south of the Property contain
condominiums equal to or greater in height than the proposed variance would allow. The RML
zoning district is not intended for single-family low density development. However, with the
physical restrictions on the Property, that is essentially all that could be built on the Property.
7) Financial hardship is not to be considered as sufficient evidence of a hardship in
granting a variance.
The justification for the variance is not related to financial issues, but rather, property rights and
consistency with surrounding areas. Further, the variance is justified as it is consistent with the
— purpose and intent of Chapter 30. The Town designated the Property in the RML zoning district
to be consistent, and not conflict, with the surrounding properties. Due to the severe restrictions
placed on the Property - the large quantity of wetlands/mangroves located on it and the unique
physical dimensions - the limited development currently allowed under Sec. 30-64(a) of the Code
is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 30 and the RML zoning district. Therefore,
it is not a financial hardship of Golden City, but rather a physical limitation placed upon the
Property by the historic growth of the wetlands/mangroves located on the Property,and its physical
dimensions.
Factoring in the buildable area of the Property, the current building height would only allow 8
units. This would place the density at below that of the lowest density zoning district in the Town
—RE. Market demand in the Town is for high-end, luxury communities. The proposed project is
Beverly M. Brown
Town Clerk
July 31, 2014
Page 8
similar to condominiums found all along Ocean Boulevard, including directly to the north and
south of the Property.
8) The grant of the variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare.
The requested variance will not be injurious to the surrounding area or otherwise detrimental to
the general public. The proposed variance relates only to building height,which in no manner will
result in public health or safety issues. Furthermore, the surrounding properties contain
condominiums of similar or greater height. The building will be designed so as to minimize the
impacts to view and other potential impacts to the neighboring properties. By being located
adjacent to South Ocean Boulevard, the significant majority of wetland/mangrove areas will be
preserved. Therefore, the natural resources of the areas will not be adversely impacted. Finally,
by preserving the natural areas,the green space will be unaffected. The surrounding communities
will maintain their view ofthe lush, natural environment.
For the reasons stated above, Golden City respectfully requests the BOAA approve the variance
from Section 30-64(a) and Table 30-2 to allow additional building height on the Property.
Very truly yours,
NASON, YEAGER, GERSON, WHITE
& LIOC ' A.
/Nathan E. Nason
Enclosure
H:\9956\22676\LBeverly Brown 07-31-14NEN.docx/sJ
i 'Me
Y �
Sam
14
` amin
�
�{ ty� ^tom �: _. `�' � "t �!l�+�► ,�
,AEC jr
ir
14
! 4C
g, F " + cam` ^-
w4?
- m
44
Jrrt
z
A Awma
w
j
Mayor:
"fighland Beach, Bernard Featherman
....... Ilk
roijvn of r,
Vice Mayor:
Miriam 8 Zwick
Op
-3614 SOUTH OCEAN 13OULEVARD HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA 33487 Commissioners
Doris M.Trinicy
X01ul J,pagilaw
Dennis 3,Sheridan
561-278-4548 Interim Thwn Manager:
Palm Beach County,Florida FAX 561-265-3582 Kathleen D Weiser
April 26,2011
Mr.Ryan J.Mueller-Broker/Owner
RJM Real Estate Corp.
900 East Atlantic Avenue,Suite#7
T)elT#.v Beach,FL 33483
RES Parcel 24-43-47-04-00-001-0030-Town of Highland Beach
De4r Mr. Mueller:
You have requested a determination as to the density which would be allowed on the above
referenced property.As you know this property is zoned RML(Multiple-Family--Low Density).
Under the Town's Code,the owner of the property would be allowed to construct 6.0 units per
acre as found in Table 30-2 reprinted below:
TABLE 30-2.
Property Development Regulations
Residential Multiple- Multiple- Multiple- Government
ZONING Residential Single- Family-- Family-- Family— Service
DISTRICT Estate Family Low Medium High District
(RE) (RS) Density Density Density (GSD)
(RML) (RMM) (RMH)
1.45 4.35 6.0 12
Density units/acre
Maximum units/acre units/acre units/acre is/acre N/A
We have confirmed that th acreage or that site is 7.43 acres.The4re,the Town's Code will
allow the const ation of 6 units x. 7,43 acres=44.58 units;rounded up to 45 units,
Please understandithat this letter is for purposes of confirming the number of units that would be
r. allowed on that sije.This letter is no an approval to construct. You,or your client,will need to
apply for a buildi g permit and will responsible for complying with all of the other provisions
of the Town Code
e related to the deve lopmont of this parcel.
www ci.1iig1i1and-beac)iJ1.us
Should you have any questions about this determination,please be sure to contact me directly.
Regards,
MICHAEL DESORCY COO
INDEPENDENT INSPECTIONS LIMITED
TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH
661.239.0282 CoU
661.276.4540 ofte
cc:Kathleen Weiser,Town Manager,Highland Beach
Carol Holland,Office Manager,Building Department
,l
1 f5
1
- i
� 3
,
's
t
o x
i
SOLUTECH, INC. Wetland Delineation
5841 Corporate Way,Suite 102 South Ocean Boulevard Parcel
West Palm Beach,FL 33407 Highland Beach, FL
Tel:(561)688-2904 Fax:(561)688-2908
Drawn By Date: November 17,2011 Figure No.:
1964 Aerial Photograph
Not to Scale Priya Job No.: 47133.00 B-1
EXHIBIT
1�
r
I w 4 R
e
t
V
Erw�il�r 1�
J
� r
i
C
Q
SOLUTECH, INC. Wetland Delineation
5841 Corporate Way,Suite 102 South Ocean Boulevard Parcel
West Palm Beach,FL 33407 Highland Beach, FL
Tel:(561)688.2904 Fax:(561)688-2908
Drawn B Date- November 17,2011 Figure No.;
1968 Aerial Photograph Y �--- ��--
Not to Scale Priya Job No.: 47133.00 B-2
�
■ �» |
/
)
�. .
F \ ƒ
\
/ a z .
« «
SOLUTECH, |NC. Wetland Delineation
SaCorporate Way,Suite 12 South Ocean Boulevard Parcel
■e aim Beach,FLS 407 Highland Beach, FL
Tel:(56,) ■sa2, 4oFax:( a„) a■ a2, aa
Drawn By dm: November 17, 2011 Figure om:
�mgAerial PkbgmA
Not to Sae Priya JA Na: 413.00 e3
N
h. v ,-
1
IrIR
�Y
r . a.
_
SOLUTECH, INC. Wetland Delineation
—� 5841 Corporate Way,Suite 102 South Ocean Boulevard Parcel
West Palm Beach,FL 33407 Highland Beach, FL
Tel:(561)688-2904 Fax:(561)688-2908
1973 Aerial Photograph
Drawn By Date: November 17,2011 Figure No.:
Not to Scale Priya Job No.: 47133.00 B-4
r �
t, ,
Y i
i
N
`3 a
Ude ,
q„ r
1
r
SOLUTECH, INC. Wetland Delineation
5841 Corporate way,Suite 102
West Palm Beach,FL 33407 South Ocean Boulevard Parcel
Tel:(561)688-2904 Fax:(561)888-2908 Highland Beach, FL
— �
1975 Aerial Photograph Drawn By Date: November 17,2011 Figure No.:
Not to Scale Priya Job No.: 47133.00 B-5
_ # \
\
. a
� y «
.2 �w
. . �
� _ \ \ 2/� ` \• \\ ^^\ \� , )
SOLUTEC H, |NC. Wetland Delineation
eq Corporate Way,Smk 102
West Palm Beach, FL 33407 South Ocean Boulevar Parcel
Tel:( s„)68a2#4Fax:(56,)6a2, a� Highland Beach, FL
2_n m t November 17,2011 Figure Na:
1986 Aerial Photograph
Not to Scale Priya kb No 4713.00 B-6
w
w
� w
r
r w
. i
t
� � t
No ..
ftw
w �
SOLUTECH, INC. Wetland Delineation
-- 5841 Corporate Way,Suite 102 South Ocean Boulevard Parcel
West Palm Beach,FL 33407
Tel:(561)688-2904 Fax:(561)688.2908 Highland Beach, FL
1995 Aerial Photograph
Drawn By Date: November 17, 2011 Figure No.:
Not to Scale Priya Job No.: 47133.00 B-7
Y
— e
u "o
... N ,
4.
SV
,
16
400,
_ R
,s
E .
c,
SOLUTECH, INC. Wetland Delineation
5841 Corporate Way,Suite 102 South Ocean Boulevard Parcel
West Palm Beach,FL 33407
Tel:(561)688-2904 Fax:(561)688.2908 Highland Beach, FL
1999 Aerial Photograph Drawn By 9
Date: November 17, 2011 Figure No.:
h
9
Not to Scale Priya Job No,: 47133.00 B-8
I
m
K
c,
j.
x
i x a
ate,
AWL
„
SOLUTECH, INC. Wetland Delineation
5841 Corporate Way, Suite 102
West Palm Beach,FL 33407 South Ocean Boulevard Parcel
Tel:(561)688-2904 Fax:(561)688-2908 Highland Beach, FL
Drawn By Date: November 17, 2011 Figure No.:
2002 Aerial Photograph ---�---
Not to Scale Priya Job No,: 47133.00 B-9
I
I
I
i
/� t a 1t•
.a
_ t
OIL
,Am.-
r
SOLUTECH, INC. Wetland Delineation
5841 Corporate Way,Suite 102 South Ocean Boulevard Parcel
West Palm Beach,FL 33407
Tel:(561)688-2904 Fax:(561)688-29D8 Highland Beach, FL
2006 Aerial Photograph
Drawn By Date: November 17, 2011 Figure No.:
Not to Scale Priya Job No.: 47133.00 B-10
_
_
. 1T
°
z
_
,
..,.
r
t `
SOLUTECH, INC. Wetland Delineation
5841 Corporate Way,Sulte 102 South Ocean Boulevard Parcel
West Palm Beach,FL 33407
Tel:(561)688-2904 Fax:(561)688-2908 Highland Beach, FI_
2008 Aerial Photograph
Drawn By Date: November 17,2011 Figure No.:
Not to Scale Priya Job No,: 47133.00 B-11
_
r..
3*
,j
i,
r
t.
s
SOLUTECH, INC. Wetland Delineation
5841 Corporate Way,Suite 102 South Ocean Boulevard Parcel
West Palm Beach,FL 33407
Tel:(561)688-2904 Fax:(561)688-2908 Highland Beach, FL
2010 Aerial Photograph
Drawn By Date: November 17,2011 Figure No.:
Not to Scale Priya Job No.: 47133.00 B-12
To: Board of Adjustment and Appeals
From: Beaches& Shores Advisory Board
Date: October 17,2014
Re: Variance Request
Golden City Project
During the Public portion of the Beaches&Shores Advisory Bond meeting of
September 9,2014 several residents came forward and voiced their concerns regarding
the property south of Toscana.
The applicant will need a variance and will have to appear before the Board of
Adjustment&Appeals. They are proposing a 16 story building on this property which
is zoned for residential multi family low density. This project would affect the
environment,our mangroves and certain species of birds such as egrets,pelicans,ibis;
certain snakes native to South Florida and the manatees. The new condo would be built
where mangroves stand between the three towers of Toscana and Regency Highland.
As members of The Beaches& Shores Advisory Board,we are very concerned about our
beaches,the turtles,the ecology and the environment of Highland Beach. Granting this
variance will also cause more traffic,noise and unsafe conditions on AIA. It is very
important that we not only protect the safety and tranquility of our residents,but that we
also protect our mangroves and endangered species. High rise housing like this is not
part of a plan to improve the natural beauty of our neighborhood The Beaches& Shores
Advisory Board members took this issue under advisement and a motion was passed to
advise the Board of Adjustment and Appeals that we are not in favor of any variance
whatsoever that will effect the ecology and the environment in Highland Beach.
Very Truly Yours,
Beaches&Shores Advisory Board
Ronnie Svenstrup, Chair
Cc: Beaches& Shores Advisory Board members
Town Manager Kathleen Weiser
Mayor and Town Commission
i
i
UNIVEHSAL
ENGINEERING SCIENCE;
PROTECTED SPECIES ASSESSMENT
VACANT PROPERTY a
3822 S.OCEAN BLVD.
HIGHLAND BEACH,PALM BEACH COUNTY,FL
i
I f
l UES Project No.0140.1300171.0000
Report No.2045456
Date:June 2023
Prepared For.
� E
Golden City Highland Beach,LLC
r'
c/o Sterling Title Coiimpany
4400 N.Federal Highway
Boca Raton,FL 33431
i
Prepared By:
i �
Uni`ve`rsal Engineering Sciences,Inc.
3532 Maggie Boulevard
Orlando,Florida.32011 i
(407)423-0504
COA#M00549
:
Prepared By:
` 0
n
Senior Environviental Scientist
Consultants in:Geotechnical En0'ine8fing•Environmental Sciences•Construction Materials Testing•Thres'Wd'InsZ*Leesburg
on
O fff ces In:Atlanta-Daytona Beach-DeBary-Fort Myers•Fort Pierce•Gainesville•Hollywood•Houston•Jacksonville
Miami*Ocala-O)rlando r.Palm Coast-Pensacola•Rockledge•Sarasota•St.Augustine_•Tampa-West Palm h
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TEXT Page No.
1.0 General Site Description...........................................................1
2.0 Existing Conditions/Habitat Descriptions.....................................1
3.0 Wildlife Assessment Methodology ..........................................3
4.0 Assessment Results...............................................................3
5.0 Summary.............................................................................5
FIGURES
1. USGS Topographic Map
2. Aerial/FLUCCS Map
3. NRCS/SCS Soils Map
APPENDICES
A. Site Photographs
B. FNAI,FFWCC,USFWS Data/Maps
ii
UES Project No.0140.1300171.0000
Report No. 1045456
1.0 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION
The property reviewed during this assessment is a vacant, 7.5+ acre, undeveloped parcel
located at 3822 S. Ocean Blvd., Highland Beach, Palm Beach County, FL (Figures 1 & 2 —
Palm Beach County Parcel ID 4-47-43-04-00-001-0030). The site is located in Section 4,
Township 47 South,and Range 43 East.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
On-site land uses: The land uses described in this report are based on the Florida Department
of Transportation's handbook "Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System"
1999 edition.
The subject property consists of uplands, wetlands, and surface waters. Photographs of the
subject property are provided in Appendix A. On-site habitat descriptions are as follows:
Uplands:
• FLUCCS 437: Australian Pines(0.036 acre/0.49%)
There is a small peninsula of uplands in the northeast corner that has a dominant
canopy of Australian pine trees(Casuarina equisetifolia). There are no other species of
vegetation within this area.
• FLUCCS 437: Other Hardwoods(0.18 acre/2.45%)
There is an upland fringe of mixed hardwood species along the eastern and northeastern
edges of the subject property. This community has a mixed canopy of cabbage palm
(Sabal palmetto), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia), sea grape (Coccoloba
uvifera), seaside mahoe (Thespesia populnea), and Australian pine. Groundcover in
this area is relatively non-existent. This area has a high density of land crab and fiddler
crab burrows throughout.
Wetlands:
• FLUCCS 612: Mangrove Swamp(5.35 acres/71.43%)
The majority of the property consists of a mangrove swamp. This habitat is dominated
by a mixture of black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) and white mangrove
(Laguncularia racemosa).
Page 1 of 6 Pages
UES Project No.0140.1300171.0000
Report No. 1045456
Surface Waters:
• FLUCCS 540: River(1.88 acres/25.58%)
The western end of the property consists of the intercoastal waterway and is under
water at all times.
Topography: The USGS topographic quadrangle map titled "Delray Beach, Florida" was
referenced as a source for obtaining information regarding the physical setting of the subject
property and surrounding vicinity (Figure 1). The subject property is located between -2'
below and 2' feet above sea level. The topography on the site is relatively flat with a very
slight slope from the east end of the property at the road side to the west side of the property
and the intercoastal waterway.
Soils: According to the Soil Conservation Service, Palm Beach County Soil Survey (see
Figure 3), surficial soils at the subject property include Palm Beach-Urban Land Complex (0-
8% slopes), Wulfert and Drubin muck (tidal), and water. Brief descriptions of these soil types
can be found below.
27: Palm Beach-Urban Land Complex(0-8%slopes)
The soils of the Palm Beach map unit are typically found on dunes on marine
terraces. The soil is excessively drained. The seasonal water table is typically
greater than 80 inches. The urban land soils have no known parent material and
are linear in form.
45: Wulfert and Durbin Muck, Tidal
This soil is very poorly drained and is found in mangrove swamps on marine
terraces. The seasonal water table is from 0-6 inches and these areas are
frequently ponded.
99: Water
This area is covered by water 100%of the time.
Drainage: The subject property is undeveloped and has no formal drainage system in place.
Adjacent Land Uses: The site is bordered to the north by a high-rise condominium structure,
to the east by S.Ocean Boulevard and single family beachfront homes,to the south by a single
family home and mangrove swamp, and to the west by the intercoastal waterway.
Page 2 of 6 Pages
UES Project No.0140.1300171.0000
Report No. 1045456
3.0 WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
UES staff scientists reviewed the property for signs of utilization or presence of any flora or
fauna listed as Threatened, Endangered, or Species of Special Concern by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FWC), and Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) based on
known habitat preference and geographical distribution. The field assessment was performed
on June 18, 2013. Weather conditions were generally partly cloudy and between 80-92
degrees with minimal winds.
The protected species assessment included:
(1) A review of aerial photographs to assess past uses and the potential for protected wildlife
based on geographic area and ecological significance.
(2)A review of numerous databases and reference materials including, but not limited to, those
provided by the USFWS, FWC, and FNAI to determine the potential species of protected
wildlife that may inhabit or utilize the subject property(Appendix B).
(3) Site reconnaissance to evaluate existing site conditions. This included pedestrian transects
through approximately 100% of the uplands on the property and quiet observation for 15-
20 minutes at various locations on the property.
(4) A review of the FWC eagle nest database website for nearby bald eagle nesting sites and
the waterbird colony locator for known wading bird nesting locations (Appendix B).
(5) A review of the USFWS on-line Critical Habitat Mapper program.
4.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS:
4.1 Potential Protected Wildlife
Based on the existing habitat found on site, the surrounding land uses, field observations,
and the data obtained from the USFWS, FNAI, and FWC (Appendix B), the wetlands on-
site have the potential to provide adequate habitat to support nesting and/or foraging by a
several listed species. The mangrove swamp on the subject property provides adequate
foraging habitat for the wood stork (Mycteria americana), the white ibis (Mycteria
Americana), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor),
limpkin (Auramus guarauna), roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja), and other wading bird
species. The mangrove swamp areas can provide nesting opportunities for egret, pelican,
ibis, stork, etc. There are also many large water bodies in the direct vicinity of the site that
would offer good foraging opportunities for the brown pelican and the wading bird species.
Page 3 of 6 Pages
UES Project No.0140.1300171.0000
Report No. 1045456
The current listed status and potential for specific species to utilize the site are discussed in
Table 1 below.
TABLE 1: Potential for individual listed species to occur on the subject pro e
Common Name Scientific Name Status Potential Comments
*(FWC/USFWS) (low,
moderate,
high)
Wood Stork Mycteria americana E/E Moderate The mangrove swamp areas
on the subject property
provide foraging and
nesting habitat for this
species. No evidence
observed.
White Ibis Eudocimus albus SSC/none Moderate The mangrove swamp areas
on the subject property
provide foraging and
nesting habitat for this
species. No evidence
observed.
Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea SSC/None Moderate The mangrove swamp areas
on the subject property
provide foraging and
nesting habitat for this
species. No evidence
observed.
Tri-colored Heron Egretta tricolor SSC/none Moderate The mangrove swamp areas
on the subject property
provide foraging and
nesting habitat for this
species. No evidence
observed.
Limpkin Aramus guarauna SSC/none Moderate The mangrove swamp areas
on the subject property
provide foraging and
nesting habitat for this
species. No evidence
observed.
Roseate Spoonbill Ajaia ajaja SSC/none Moderate The mangrove swamp areas
on the subject property
provide foraging and
nesting habitat for this
species. No evidence
observed.
Brown Pelican Pelecamus occidentalis SSC/None(in FL) High The mangrove swamp areas
on the subject property
provide some nesting
habitat for this species.
Open waters of the adjacent
river/intercoastal waterway
provide foraging habitat.
No evidence observed.
Page 4 of 6 Pages
i
UES Project No.0140.1300171.0000
Report No. 1045456
Manatee Trichechus manatus E/E Moderate The open waters of the
intercoastal waterway at the
west end of the property
offer passage to the
manatees. Very limited
seagrass was observed in the
area for foraging. None
observed.
*SSC-species of special concern,T-threatened,E-endangered
4.2 Observed Protected Wildlife/Plants
The results of the assessment found no evidence indicating that the subject property is
currently being utilized by any species of protected wildlife. There were no direct
observations of listed species during the assessment. There were also no observations of
dens, tracks, scat, nests, burrows, or vocalizations during the assessment that would
indicate any species of protected wildlife are utilizing the property. However, based on the
presence of the mangrove swamp, river system, open water tidal swamp areas on the
adjoining property, and the vicinity of the property being along the coast, it is expected that
many protected species and non-protected species of wading birds can be found utilizing
the subject property for foraging at any time.
A review of the FFWCC Eagle Nest Database indicates that no eagle nests were located
within 5 miles of the subject property. The FFWCC Waterbird Colony Locator website
search was negative (Appendix B). The closest wood stork nesting site is located over 10
miles west-northwest of the subject property.
4.3 Non-Protected Wildlife Observations/Evidence
Non-protected wildlife evidence observed on-site during the site visit included direct
observations of the giant land crab, fiddler crab, mockingbird, green heron, and various
seagulls(overhead). Other evidence observed included raccoon tracks.
5.0 SUMMARY:
The results of the assessment found no evidence indicating that the subject property is
currently being utilized by any species of protected wildlife. There were no direct
observations of listed species on the property during the assessment. There were also no
observations of dens, tracks, scat, nests, burrows, or vocalizations during the assessment
that would indicate any species of protected wildlife are utilizing the property. However,
based on the presence of the mangrove swamp, river/intercoastal waterway system, open
water tidal swamp areas on the adjoining property, and the vicinity of the property being
along the coast, it is expected that many protected species and non-protected species of
wading birds can be found utilizing the subject property for foraging and/or nesting at any
time. No listed plant species were observed. Based on the existing habitat found on site,
the surrounding land uses, field observations, and the data obtained from the FNAI and
FWC (Appendix B), the site provides adequate foraging and/or nesting habitat for multiple
Page 5 of 6 Pages
LIES Project No.0140.1300171.0000
Report No. 1045456
wading bird species. No observations of indicating the presence of these species occurred
during the assessment. At this time, the development of the subject property is likely to
have minimal affect, if any, on protected wildlife.
This assessment represents the results of our review on the date indicated. UES accepts no responsibility for recruitment of protected wildlife
to the site following the date(s)of this assessment. The USFWS,FFWCC,and local government agencies may request additional assessments
and/or surveys at any time. Universal Engineering Sciences is pleased to provide this preliminary protected species assessment report for the
above referenced site. If there are any continents and/or questions regarding this report,please contact David Whitney at(407)423-0504.
Page 6 of 6 Pages
d
FIGURE 1
'OPO MAP
r«
"M•Y T' f4�
I i '22R� \ ( ,y,i � .d. ter•
4
• 1 C�fr f �, ,xx, ,,,�`
y tr p 991
�+�—y' "
rd':i,c. � �_ ¢ 4 G._ _,cam y.�: •
s
•
r
JA�.• ow '.i9Cr
rte..•..
Y�-
9Y� Q �. 1 B' T• `.
41
��.jt t ti t aU.l�'>aR .•�,swK. 7� f t +��r 5:�3=1tif:}I•�f�}
it� � d � i • _` r r��r � {
yt K i` 'yYyal�•p�I®�ni�t;:7P'.;c 9: ,i �j ��•y .`�i ! (S�'•
41�k 44
7i J �,.' .16'.A.�1 ..,`:svyl 'G t' •�Se.a'M il; •7i�. 3 .. '...Y
y4'N u'Y' ct' �', � y" '��'�[�9�•, yr '�Af � �7fi��' �� i ; . ... •.,..�•,3"
VIM
Awl 11"m BMW
4a .. .�+r '� lj a R{"1 � � �•.
PRELIMINARY PROTECTED SPECIES ASSESSMENT
• • • e- • e e• e•
3822 S. OCEANBOULEVARD
HIGHLAND BEACH, • 1 BEACH COUNTY, FLOR
SITE LOCATION
a • a •
UNIVERSAL
ENGINEERING SCIENCES
.• ► • +
FIGURE 2
LAND USE/AERIAL MAP
E
i
I
E
k
t �
r .
LEGEND
437-AUSTRAILIAN PINES(0,036 AC RES/0.49%)
439-OTHER HARDWOODS(0.18 ACRES2.459%)
540 w BAYSAND ESTUARIES(1,488 ACRES/25.58%)
612-MANGROVE SWAMPS(5.35 ACRES/71.430k)
TOTAL SITE AREA a 7.35 ACRES 0 200
AERIAL PHOTO 8bURCE•FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AERIAL PHOTO LOOK-UP SYSTEM _ LE(FT.)
oof
PRELIMINARY PROTECTED SPECIES ASSESSMENT
3822 S. OCEAN BOULEVARD
HIGHLAND BEACH, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Q -- ------ 2011 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH/FLUCCS MAP
UNNEF3SAL
C3 ENGINEERING SCIENCES DRAWN 8Y: R K S. DATE: 6-24-13 CHECKED 8Y: DATE:
M
SCALE: AS SHOWN PROJECT NO: 0140.1300171.0000 REPORT N0: FIGURE NO 2
FIGURE 3
SOILS MAP
{
g
SOILS LEGEND - -- - -
27 PALM BEACH-URBAN LAND COMPLEX,0 TO 8 PERCENT SLOPES
45-WULFERT&DURBIN MUCK,TIDAL I
I
99-WATER
' i
`200
SOIL DATA SOURCES USDA-NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY
AERIAL PHOTO SOURCE:FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AERIAL PHOTO LOOK-UP SYSTEM SCALE(FT.)
PRELIMINARY PROTECTED SPECIES ASSESSMENT
3822 S. OCEAN BOULEVARD
HIGHLAND BEACH, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
SOIL SURVEY MAP
UNWERSAI_
o 'ORAWN BY: R,KfS DATE: 8-24-i 3J ;CHECKED BY: DATE:
ch ENGINEERING SCIENCES _
SCALE: AS SHOWN-. PROJECT NO: 0140.1300171;0000 REPORT N0; FIGURE NO: 3
APPENDIX A
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
f,
i
e ,
F ,
t
n
OTo�� 1
along
nr:�rrt)re e
� ter
rrno#th�;i
zi
lit hr'oPe t��. rxrz��ert "
---•..., cill c,rSt tr)Si< hots? take jt• #"
1r-r1 '. corlr ilte ertrs. plan ti-ill
-,'�,tr ISI rI. �c refthC,
Page 1 o f4
i
f
f the I
a ��o
liplantl
n ti ,.e eels"
4 ,•
attr) fhe Vi of't
' "Str�ilian �i he�artlt ertge of ��<
l ne hal�itatto the r+ri.
'ate xerl
ci at the
"orthellstnt, it
��t of lit, yu
r
Page 2 of~�'��-�...."---...�,�tic rtj'
ci►rf s�
r�mar►�r�
tht V►e"F3 :,
)t'p
Ircrty � .�ry rr
fr on) list �ester
s
o►rth��est lie
sus►c� ,.,,.
I tct Pr-rrper kl,facia a7 t orr
""�►...,., r►ortheast,
Page 3 Of 4
f4 .�`
.a'
,y
!1!
� Ott
11 theof thea 1lorthw
srrbct
ProPcrty ,,,, th est corn fr of tile,
z racoart�t Iva
E
theS{��) 191
)ect Pro e lntt stcp,
► et t Perp, l Icing r►orth .?oc�ttect
X hoto to
kEn fro '`�esf
,}nst On
south of e��cl o#�
su J ct
Page 4of4
APPENDIX B
FNAI, FFWCC, USFWS DATA/MAPS
Print Bald Eagle Nest Data Page 1 of 1
This report was generated using the bald eagle nest locator at
https://public.myfwc.com/FWRI/EagleNests/nestiocator.aspx on 6/24/2013 4:31:15 PM.
Search Entered: Within 5 miles of 3822 South Ocean Boulevard, Highland Beach, FL 33487, USA 33487 (latitude
26.4072264 and longitude -80.0649905); All Search Results
0 record(s) were found; 0 record(s) are shown
Bald Eagle Nest Map:
! 1
� 6
1
� t
19+4
■
Results per page:
Bald Eagle Nest Data Search Results: All
"Y"denotes an active nest "U"denotes a nest that was visited but status was undetermined
"N"denotes an inactive nest "*"denotes a nest that was not surveyed
-"denotes an unobserved nest
https://public.myfwc.com/FWRI/EagleNests/PrintData.aspx 6/24/2013
FNAI Biodiversity Matrix Page I of 3
1018 Thomasville Road
sv2��
Tallahassee,Fl 32303 Florida Natural Areas Inventory
850-224-8207
&W-"1.9364 fax Biodiversity Matrix Query Results
www.fnai.org UNOFFICIAL REPORT
FL RPDA Created 6/19/2013
194 tui ATem (Contact the FNAI Data Services Coordinator at 850.224.8207 for
INVENTORY information on an official Standard Data Report)
NOTE:The Biodiversity Matrix includes only rare species and natural communities tracked by FNAI.
Report for 1 Matrix Unit: 69315
Descriptions
DOCUMENTED-There is a documented occurrence in the FNAI
database of the species or community within this Matrix Unit.
DOCUMENTED-HISTORIC-There is a documented occurrence in
the FNAI database of the species or community within this Matrix
Unit; however the occurrence has not been observed/reported within
the last twenty years.
LIKELY-The species or community is known to occur in this vicinity,
and is considered likely within this Matrix Unit because:
1. documented occurrence overlaps this and adjacent Matrix
Units, but the documentation isn't precise enough to indicate
which of those Units the species or community is actually
located in; or
2. there is a documented occurrence in the vicinity and there is
suitable habitat for that species or community within this Matrix
Unit.
POTENTIAL-This Matrix Unit lies within the known or predicted
range of the species or community based on expert knowledge and
environmental variables such as climate,soils,topography, and
landcover.
Matrix Unit ID: 69315
0 Documented Elements Found
0 Documented-Historic Elements Found
6
Likely Elements Found
Scientific and Common Names Global State Federal State
Rank Rank Status Listing
Caretta caretta G3 S3 LT FT
Loggerhead
Chelonia mydas G3 S2 LE FE
Green Turtle
Dermochelys coriacea G2 S2 LE FE
Leatherback
Eretmochelys imbricata
http://data.labins.org/m apping/FNAI_B ioMatrix/GridSearch.efin?sel_id=69315&extent=791390.43 75,27... 6/19/2013
FNAI Biodiversity Matrix Page 2 of 3
Hawksbill G3 S1 LE FE
Jacauemontia reclinata G1 S1 LE LE
Beach Jacquemontia
Mvcteria americana G4 S2 LE FE
Wood Stork
Matrix Unit ID: 69315
31 Potential Elements for Matrix Unit 69315
Scientific and Common Flames Global State Federal State
Rank Rank Status Listing
Aphelocoma coerulescens G2 S2 LT FT
Florida Scrub-Jay
Athene cunicularia floridana
Florida Burrowing Owl G4T3 S3 N SSC
Chamaesyce cumulicola
Sand-dune Spurge G2 S2 N LE
Charadrius melodus
Piping Plover G3 S2 LT FT
Cladonia perforata
Perforate Reindeer Lichen G1 S1 LE LE
Conradina grandiflora G3 S3 N LT
Large-flowered Rosemary
Ctenogobius stigmaturus
Spottail Goby G2 S2 N N
Drymarchon coupe ri
Eastern Indigo Snake G3 S3 LT FT
Elytraria caroliniensis var. angustifolia G4T2 S2 N N
Narrow-leaved Carolina Scalystem
Eumops floridanus G1 S1 PE ST
Florida bonneted bat
Forestiera segregata var.pinetorum G4T2 S2 N N
Florida Pinewood Privet
Glandularia maritima
Coastal Vervain G3 S3 N LE
Gopherus Dolvphemus
Gopher Tortoise G3 S3 C ST
Ha/ophila iohnsonii
Johnson's Seagrass G2 S2 LT N
Jacauemontia curtissii G2 52 N LT
Pineland Jacquemontia
Lechea cernua G3 S3 N LT
Nodding Pinweed
Lechea divaricata G2 S2 N LE
Pine Pinweed
Linum carteri var. smallii G
Small's Flax 2T2 S2 N LE
Peromvscus polionotus niveiventris G5T1 Si LT FT
Southeastern Beach Mouse
Phyllanthus pentaphyllus var. floridanus G4T2 S2 N N
Florida Five-petaled Leaf-flower
Po/vaa/a smallii GI S1 LE LE
Tiny Polygala
Rallus longirostris scottii G5T3? 53? N N
Florida Clapper Rail
Rana capito
Gopher Frog G3 S3 N SSC
Rivulus marmoratus
Mangrove Rivulus G3 S3 SC SSC
http://data.labins.org/mapping/FNAI_BioMatrix/GridSearch.cfm?sel_id=69315&extent=791390.4375,27... 6/19/2013
FNAI Biodiversity Matrix Page 3 of 3
Roystonea elata
Florida Royal Palm G2G3 S2 N LE
Scel000rus woo di G3 S3 N N
Florida Scrub Lizard
Selaginella eatonii
Eaton's Spike Moss GZG3 S2 N LE
Setophaga discolor paludicola GST3 S3 N N
Florida Prairie Warbler
Swietenia mahagoni G3G4 S3 N LT
West Indies Mahogany
Trichechus manatus G2 S2 LE FE
Manatee
r
Trichomanes punctatum ssp. floridanum G4G5T1 S1 C LE
Florida Filmy Fern
Disclaimer
The data maintained by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory represent the single most comprehensive source of information available on
the locations of rare species and other significant ecological resources statewide. However,the data are not always based on
comprehensive or site-specific field surveys. Therefore, this information should not be regarded as a final statement on the biological
resources of the site being considered, nor should it be substituted for on-site surveys. FNAI shall not be held liable for the accuracy and
completeness of these data,or opinions or conclusions drawn from these data. FNAI is not inviting reliance on these data. Inventory data
are designed for the purposes of conservation planning and scientific research and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for
regulatory decisions.
Unofficial Report
These results are considered unofficial. FNAI offers a Standard Data Reouest option for those needing certifiable data.
http://data.labins.org/mapping/FNAI_BioMatrix/GridSearch.cfm?sel_id=69315&extent=7913 90.4375,27... 6/19/2013
r
r .,
ti
,r
x
• .j i.p.. I.( .�i A5.g
i
Z
$ I
A 2
2 i / M �
c
} �
■ L U. - a
t � <
�. .�..�-- .�� � . .. . . x
! � �fir
Al
�\�|
� }�|
� |
� -owe \ /
) ( �
. �
LEONARD G. Rum,, P.A.
NORTHPOINT CORPORATE CENTER
701 NORTHPOINT PARMAY,SUITE 209
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33407-1950
LEONARD G.RUBIN TELEPHONE (561)721-1683
FLORIDA BAR BOARD CERTIFIED FACSIMILF: (561)686-8764
MY COUNTY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENA'ATrORNEY
September 26, 2014
Via electronic transmission nason(cD-nasonveager.com.�----------
PNathan E. Nason, Esquire
Nason Yeager, et al.
1654 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1200
03 7 0 1 5
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Re: Town of Highland Beach/Golden City Highland B
Dear Nat:
I am in receipt of your letter dated September 8, 2014, regarding the variance
request submitted by your client, Golden City Highland, LLC. Your client is seeking a
variance to construct a high-rise building 209 feet in height within the Town's
Residential Multiple-Family Low-Density (RML) zoning district. As you are aware,
Section 30-62 of the Town Code provides that the purpose of the RML zoning district is
to "encourage alternative housing styles, such as townhouses and patio homes."
Consequently, the maximum height within the RML zoning district is thirty-five feet.
You are seeking clarification of the Town Building Official's representation that
your client is also required to seek a variance from the side setback requirement. The
Town Code provides that the minimum side setback within the RML is twelve feet. As
set forth above, however, the RML zoning district regulations do not contemplate
structures greater than three stories. Within the two zoning districts that do contemplate
high-rise structures, Residential Multiple-Family Medium Density (RMM) and Residential
Multiple-Family High Density (RMH), Section 30-66 of the Town Code prescribes a
separate high-rise setback that increases for all portions of the structure in excess of
thirty feet at a rate of one additional foot of setback for each additional two feet in height
above twenty feet.
Because the Town Code provides that the high-rise setback only applies within
the RMM and RMH zoning districts, the Town cannot require that your client seek a
variance from this section. However, in the event the Board of Adjustment grants a
height waiver, Staff will recommend that the Board impose a condition requiring your
client to comply with each of the high-rise setback requirements set forth in Section 30-
66 of the Town Code. The Town's position is that these setback requirements should
apply to all high-rises constructed in the Town, especially within zoning districts that do
not even contemplate high-rise structures.
`
Valerie Oakes
From: Valerie Oakes
Sent. Tuesday,October OT3O149:44AM
To: 'Len Rubin'; Kathleen D.Weiser
Cc: Michael G. Desoo9
Subject: RE: Request for Ethics Opinion
Attachments,- Verbatim ofP. RodisCornnnent.odf
�
See attached...thesection is highlighted.
�
��m�
^'°~'~k you,
Valerimomkes, CMC
�
j� ��
8�� ��� � �l ���°.. ~
��
Town ofHighland Beach
3614S.Ocean Blvd.
Highland Beach, FL33487
P. (56l)27@-4548
F. (561) 26S-3582
°Nhmtthe mind ofman can conceive and believe, itcmnochieme.^—Napoleon Hill
Please headvised that under Florida law,e-mails and e-mail addresses are public records.Ifyou donot want your e-mail address released in
response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity,
From: Len Rubin
Sent:Tuesday, October 07, 2014 9:26 AM
To: Kathleen D. Weiser
Cc: Michael G. > Valerie Oakes
Subject: RE: Request for Ethics Opinion
| went back and forth on that issue. If you wish' | can include that issue as well (although | think | will still need to
"rehabilitate" the Board regard|esa).
Can you please get me a verbatim (or the recording)of what exactly was said?
If we are down to three members, we will need to talk about the Commission perhaps appointing new members for this
specific case, since it takes a vote of four to grant a variance.
Len
Leonard G. Rubin, Esquire
Board Certified City County and Local
Government Attorney
Leonard G. Rubin, P.A.
701 Northpoint Parkway, Suite 209
West Palm Bemch, Florida 33407
Telephone: (S61) 721-1883
F000imnUa: (5O1)G88-87G4
i
Disclaimer:This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,18 U.S.C.§§2510-2521 and is legally privileged.The information contained in
this e-mail is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution,or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited.If you receive this e-mail in error,please notify the sender immediately at the phone number above and delete the information from your computer.
Please do not copy or use it for any purpose nor disclose its contents to any other person.
From: Kathleen D. Weiser [mailto:kweiser@ci.highland-beach.fl.us]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 3:47 PM
To: Len Rubin
Cc: Michael G. Desorcy; Valerie Oakes
Subject: RE: Request for Ethics Opinion
It reads fine. My question would be, as long as we are approaching the Commission on Ethics, if we should also ask
them about the 4th member who publicly stated at a Commission meeting that he could not support the project. If he is
disqualified from voting, as well as the members who reside in Toscana, would the Board be ineligible to hear the case
with only three members?
Kathleen Dailey Weiser
Town Manager
Town of Highland Beach
3614 South Ocean Blvd.
Highland Beach, Florida 33487
Phone: 561-278-4548
Fax:561-265-3582
www.ci.hig_hland-beach.f1.us
From: Len Rubin fmailto:Igrubin@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 2:51 PM
To: Kathleen D. Weiser; Michael G. Desorcy
Cc: Valerie Oakes
Subject: Request for Ethics Opinion
Attached please find my draft letter to the Commission on Ethics regarding the Golden City variance application. Please
review and get back to me with any questions or comments. Thanks!
Len
Leonard G. Rubin, Esquire
Board Certified City County and Local
Government Attorney
Leonard G. Rubin, P.A.
701 Northpoint Parkway, Suite 209
West Palm Beach, Florida 33407
Telephone: (561) 721-1683
Facsimile: (561)686-8764
Disclaimer:This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.§§2510-2521 and is legally privileged.The information contained in
this e-mail is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution,or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited.If you receive this e-mail in error,please notify the sender immediately at the phone number above and delete the information from your computer.
Please do not copy or use it for any purpose nor disclose its contents to any other person.
2
Town Commission Workshop Minutes
August 26,2014 Page.2 of 9
Over$900,000 was spent on renovations of Town Hall when the spending limit without approval by
referendum was $350,000! This was an illegal act, and should be punishable. The persons who are
responsible for this illegal spending should pay for it. This is a criminal act of Grand Theft.
The IG report came to the conclusion that this will not happen again. However, it was done and the
Commissioners are at fault for allowing it to happen.
Someone, the Town Manager, the Lawyer, or possible Commission members should be held
accountable. The entire Commission has a fiduciary position and proceeded to cause this fiasco and
took advantage of the people in the Town of Highland Beach.
I look forward to receiving a written reply from my Town of Highland Beach Commissioners
explaining what actions will be taken to those responsible."
Dr. Bill Weitz, 1135 Boca Cove Lane — At the last meeting Town Attorney Torcivia suggested the
comments I made, as well as others, should be dismissed because they were political in nature. I
thought about it and agree with him that it is political since this is a political process. I don't think you
can refute or dismiss any statement made on this podium simply because it is political and this is a
political meeting. Based on opinions he has given to the Town Commission, I believe the Town
Attorney has not served this town well and should resign from his position. With respect to the Town
Manager's selling of the chairs that was brought up several matings ago for a minimal amount, it is
not the amount of money or the number of chairs; if you sell government property without
authorization, it is a crime. Two weeks ago you were asked to approve additional monies for the
architect. It was for$13,000 but asked for$20,000 in case it is needed. You asked to ratify it which
was after the fact. The Town Manager already had a bill for $19,000 on her desk two weeks prior.
The money had already been spent. The Town Manager is now recommending that you hire the same
architect to handle our engineering project for the Library. The additional monies spent were an
increase of fifty percent (50%) over the initial allocation of money to that architect. The Town
Manager authorized this,not you. You ratified it. I am asking for her resignation also.
Peter Rodis, 3224 S. Ocean Blvd. —I have mixed feelings regarding the five percent (5%) increase to
the employees of this town. I spoke to the Library Director and she indicated to me that the individual
employee looks forward to that increase. Other communities such as Delray Beach have approved a
2-1/2%increase. I would hope that the Commission discuss this and consider changing the number to
2-1/2% in the budget. I also concur with everything Dr. Weitz has indicated. I don't think this issue
should go away and feel the Town Commission should meet in a private session and decide what is
appropriate for this issuance.
Max Angel, 2727 S. Ocean Blvd.—I don't understand how the Town Manager and Town Attorney did
not know about the rule that you can't spend X amount of dollars without appropriations. I am against
this. These rules have been on the books for years.
I am here again on the subject of the property south of Toscana
on AIA. This has been put into the Town of Highland Beach for an application to build a 16 story
building. As I said the last time,the tranquility of Highland Beach would be destroyed. The building
I
Town Commission Workshop Minutes
Au"26,2014 Pa e 3 of 9
code at this time states that it is to be 35 feet high and small density. There should be no variances of
any sort given to this property.
Rhoda Zelniker, 3912 S. Ocean Blvd. — I would like to concur with Marni. The north side of our
building will abut this property and is a major concern for us. We are letting our Commissioners know
of our concern for this building. We understand progress, but there is a certain amount of tranquility
we would like to keep in Highland Beach.
Silvio Blaskovicz, Highland Beach Dr. —I believe it would be a mistake to remove the boatlifts from
Special Exception. Bel Lido Isle is a community unto itself and unlike any other of the surrounding
communities. Having these boatlifts would disturb our views and make for a very congested
community. If you pass this ordinance anything could happen and there would be no control over
these boatlifts. Special Exception was designed to protect the value of the property. You should
contact the people in Bel Lido and see what they want.
Carl Gamin, 1123 Highland Beach Dr.—I want you to know that I find this very impressive.
addressed the concern of Marnie Glasser of 2727 S. Ocean Blvd.
who previously spoke regal a zoning issue on the proper located south of Toscana. He indicated
that he serves on the Board of Adjustment&Appeals and asks all concerned residents to come to their
meetings and express their concerns regarding zoning issues. The Board members are very strict when
it comes to zoning. If the zoning issue is 35 feet then it won't be changed. The federal government
forced Highland Beach to build Toscana which is 16 stories high. Nobody has that right again.
Whatever the zoning issue is that is the zoning issue. Any concerned resident should come before the
Board of Adjustment and Appeals when this developer is presenting his plan and they can voice their
opinion. Then they can see that we will uphold the statute and the zoning and nothing beyond 35 feet
will be built.
Peggy Brown, Tranquility Drive—I understand Silvio's concerns. As Treasurer of our Homeowner's
Association, I received many calls after an anonymous letter went out asking why we would live on
the water if we can't have a boatlift. It is a safety issue in hurricanes.
Silvio Blaskovicz stated that most people don't mean what they say. They are not aware of what they
are agreeing to. The boatlift issue should be presented properly to the people.
3. PRESENTATIONS:
None.
4. BOARDS AND COMMITTEES:
A) Board Correspondence:
• None
B) Board Action Report:
• No Report
l C) Board Vacancies:
Michael G. Desorcy
From: Len Rubin [Igrubin@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 1:13 PM
To: Michael
Cc: x «thleeriYCI ® esi
Subject: .,..,,V�riande Req est -Golden City Highland Beach SEP 9 3 2014
G� i Vf, t
HIGHLAND BEACH
Mike: !. _ j BUILDING DEPARTMENT
1ER
Pursuant to your r ve referenced variance application. The applicant is seeking a variance
from the maximum height restriction within the RML zoning district. The maximum height within the RML district is 35
feet, and the applicant is seeking to construct a 16 story multi-family residential building that is 209 feet in height or
almost six times the maximum allowable height.
As we have discussed, Staff cannot prevent an applicant from moving forward with a variance request. It is ultimately
up to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to determine, based on the testimony and evidence presented at the
hearing, whether the application meets each of the eight criteria for a variance. No Staff member can make that
determination. However, in reviewing the application,these are my preliminary thoughts:
1. In asserting that special circumstances exist that are unique to the Property, the applicant points to the
wetland/mangrove growth on the Property over a period of fifty years that now limits the developable area to
approximately 10%. However, the applicant purchased this property in April 2013. Therefore, as to this particular
property owner, the history of the Property is generally irrelevant. At the time of the purchase, the applicant knew or
should have known of such development limitations, as well the current zoning designation and the applicable
regulations within that zoning district.
2. In asserting that the special circumstances and conditions form a true hardship, the applicant again points to
restrictions on buildable area and asserts that the dimensions of the Property have existed for decades, well before it
purchased the Property. Again, this is not a situation where the application of new regulations negatively impacts some
type of vested use because the applicant was well aware of these conditions and circumstances when it purchased the
Property. The fact that the Code allows a maximum density of 45 units is of no relevance. There are often other factors
that restrict the ability of a developer to reach maximum density, including, but not limited to, height, setback and
parking requirements. The applicant maintains that without the variance, the Property could only be utilized for single-
family or duplex development and asserts that the RML zoning district is not intended for such development. However,
Section 30-62(c) of the Town Code states that the purpose of the RML district "is to encourage alternative housing
styles, such as townhouses and patio house, at low densities to allow compatible special exception uses." Single-family
or duplex development is more in line with the purpose and intent of the RML district than a 16 story condominium.
3. In asserting that the literal interpretation or application of the height restriction would deprive it of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties within the same zoning district, the applicant points to the adjacent
developments, including the three 17-story towers within Toscana and an adjacent 14-story condominium. Asa general
rule, the fact that adjacent properties do not comply with the underlying zoning regulations or have received variances
cannot be utilized to justify a variance application. Each application must be considered on its own merit. Also, the
applicant candidly admits that the Town approved building height restrictions in 1990 (23 years before it acquired the
property), yet argues that such restrictions should not apply to this Property because other properties were developed
under a different set of rules. In essence, the application maintains that the Commission's decision to limit height
should be ignored.
4. The applicant correctly points out that other properties within the RML zoning district exceed 30 feet.
However, as stated above,the Town Commission changed the rules, and the applicant purchased the Property long after
such rules took effect.
5. The applicant effectively argues that without some type of variance,the density of the Property will be less than
the maximum allowable density within the RE zoning district (1.45 units per acre). However, the variance criteria state
that the variance requested must be the minimum variance that will make possible the use of the land, building or
structure. The applicant can seek much less of a variance and still utilize the Property for a multi-family development.
Rather than seek the minimum variance that will allow it to make reasonable use of the Property, the applicant is
seeking the maximum variance that would allow the maximum density of 45 units.
6. Throughout the variance application, the applicant points out that it seeks to maintain the "exclusivity" of the
Town with "high-end" unit owners. Such factors are not relevant to issue of whether a variance should be granted.
7. With respect to conformity with the general intent and purpose of the Town's Zoning Code, the RML zoning
district does not, as fully set forth above, contemplate a 16-story condominium tower; rather, it expressly contemplates
townhouses and patio homes.
8. In my personal opinion, the applicant's argument that its application is not based on financial hardship is a little
disingenuous. Clearly, the more units that can be placed on the Property, the greater the potential financial benefit to
the property owner.
9. Finally, the applicant raises a valid point that the variance will not be injurious to the area involved or
detrimental to the public welfare given that the surrounding properties contain condominiums of similar or greater
height. Further, the proposed open design does appear to take into account the impacts to the views of neighboring
properties.
As stated above, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is charged with determining whether the application and other
evidence/materials submitted during the course of the hearing demonstrate that the applicant complies with each of
the variance criteria. The purpose of this e-mail is only to offer my personal thoughts. I have no vote or input on the
merits of the application and only advise the Board on legal issues. Based on the analysis set forth above, I believe the
applicant will have a difficult time justifying the current request. However, the applicant does make some valid points
and may want to consider a middle ground, namely, reducing the extent of the variance request to perhaps allow a mid-
rise type of structure.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Len
MID
Leonard G. Rubin, Esquire SEP Q 3 2014
Board Certified City County and Local HIGHLAND BEACH
Government Attorney BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Leonard G. Rubin, P.A. - �-
701 Northpoint Parkway, Suite 209
West Palm Beach, Florida 33407
Telephone: (561) 721-1683
Facsimile: (561) 686-8764
Disclaimer:This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,18 U.S.C.§§2510-2521 and is legally privileged.The information contained in
this e-mail is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution,or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited.If you receive this e-mail in error,please notify the sender immediately at the phone number above and delete the information from your computer.
Please do not copy or use it for any purpose nor disclose its contents to any other person.
2
Valerie Oakes
From: Kathleen D.Weiser
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 3:47 PM
To: Len Rubin
Cc: Michael G. Desorcy,Valerie Oakes
Subject: RE: Request for Ethics Opinion
It reads fine. My question would be, as long as we are approaching the Commission on Ethics, if we should also ask
them about the 4th member who publicly stated at a Commission meeting that he could not support the project. If he is
disqualified from voting, as well as the members who reside in Toscana, would the Board be ineligible to hear the case
with only three members?
Kathleen Dailey Weiser
Town Manager
Town of Highland Beach
3614 South Ocean Blvd.
Highland Beach, Florida 33487
Phone: 561-278-4548
Fax: 561-265-3582
www.ci.hia1and-beach.fl.us
From: Len Rubin [mailto:IgrubinCabbellsouth.net]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 2:51 PM
To: Kathleen D. Weiser; Michael G. Desorcy
Cc: Valerie Oakes
Subject: Request for Ethics Opinion
Attached please find my draft letter to the Commission on Ethics regarding the Golden City variance application. Please
review and get back to me with any questions or comments. Thanks!
Len
Leonard G. Rubin, Esquire
Board Certified City County and Local
Government Attorney
Leonard G. Rubin, P.A.
701 Northpoint Parkway, Suite 209
West Palm Beach, Florida 33407
Telephone: (561) 721-1683
Facsimile: (561) 686-8764
Disclaimer:This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,18 U.S.C.§§2510-2521 and is legally privileged.The information contained in
this e-mail is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution,or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited.If you receive this e-mail in error,please notify the sender immediately at the phone number above and delete the information from your computer.
Please do not copy or use it for any purpose nor disclose its contents to any other person.
1
Michael G Desorcy
From: Len Rubin *yuelmvuuu/ey
Sent: Tuesdoy, October O7. 2O141O:OQAM
To: 'NathanNaoon
Cc: Michael
Subject: Golden City Variance Application
31 7
Nat:
|nIR
����t�a 0ea� p���y��n� | oo�� ����|m��t�
nnaxinnurn density and the actual acreage of the parcel. Pursuant to the Town's Comprehensive Plan, the rnaxinnunn
density for properties with a future land use classification of multiple family low is six units per acre.
When Mr. De5mrcyca|cu|ated the density im 2011, the Property Appraiser apparently listed the total acreage as 7.43
acres. At six units per acre, this provided for a maximum of 45 units /44.58 rounded up). However, both the Property
Appraiser and the application list the gross acreage as7.35acres. Atsix units per acre, the maximum number mfunits
for the property isonly 44(44.1rounded dovvn).
Based on the foregoing, the maximum density for any mnu|ti'fanni|ydvve||ing ultimately constructed on the property
cannot exceed 44units without violating the Comprehensive Plan.
Should you have any questions, please donot hesitate tocontact me.
Leonard G, Rubin, Esquire
Board Certified City County and Local
Government Attorney
Leonard G. Rubin, P.A.
701 Northpoint Parkway, Suite 209
West Palm Beach, Florida 33407
Telephone: (581) 721-1883
Facsimile: (5O1)G08-8784
Disclaimer:This e-mail iocovered uythe Electronic Communications Privacy Act,18 and is legally privileged.The information contained m
this e-mail is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,nrthe employee or agent
responsible fodelivering umthe intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution, mthis communication/vstrictly
prohibited.nyou receive this e-mail merror,please notify the sender immediately at the phone number above and delete the information from your computer.
Please uonot copy muse nfor any purpose nor disclose its contents many other person.
1
Beverly Brown
From: Len Rubin <Igrubin@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 9:37 AM
To: 'Steve Cullen'
Cc: Kathleen D.Weiser, Michael G. Desorcy; Beverly Brown
Subject: RE:Town of Highland Beach Advisory Opinion
Mr. Cullen:
Yes,that timeframe is acceptable. The hearing at issue is currently scheduled for November 19, 2014.
Please let me know if I may be of additional assistance.
Leonard G. Rubin, Esquire
Board Certified City County and Local
Government Attorney
Leonard G. Rubin, P.A.
701 Northpoint Parkway, Suite 209
West Palm Beach, Florida 33407
Telephone: (561) 721-1683
Facsimile: (561)686-8764
Disclaimer:This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,18 U.S.C.§§2510-2521 and is legally privileged.The information contained in
this e-mail is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution,or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited.If you receive this e-mail in error,please notify the sender immediately at the phone number above and delete the information from your computer.
Please do not copy or use it for any purpose nor disclose its contents to any other person.
From: Steve Cullen fmailto:SCullen('Opalmbeachcountyethics.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 9:10 AM
To: Igrubin@bellsouth.net
Subject: Town of Highland Beach Advisory Opinion
Leonard,
I have your request for advisory opinion.
I anticipate presenting it to the Commission at the next scheduled meeting, November 6.
It this timeframe acceptable?
Thanks,
Steve
Steven P. Cullen
Executive Director
Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics
The Historic 1916 Palm Beach County Courthouse#450
300 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Ph 561-355-1922
Fx 561-355-1904
1
Valerie Oakes
From: Len Rubin <Igrubin@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:49 AM
To: Kathleen D.Weiser; Beverly Brown
Cc: Michael G. Desorcy;Valerie Oakes
Subject: FW:Golden City Highland Beach, LLC
Attachments: Letter Leonard Rubin 10-22-14.pdf
For your information and direction.
In my other municipalities,we leave it up to the individual elected and appointed officials whether they want to meet
with an applicant or not and do not facilitate such meetings. The names and addresses of the officials are public record
and can be provided upon request.
Please confirm whether the Town has any lobbyist registration requirements(other than keeping the log required by the
County Code). Thanks!
Len
Leonard G. Rubin, Esquire
Board Certified City County and Local
Government Attorney
Leonard G. Rubin, P.A.
701 Northpoint Parkway, Suite 209
West Palm Beach, Florida 33407
Telephone: (561) 721-1683
Facsimile: (561) 686-8764
Disclaimer:This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,18 U.S.C.§§2510-2521 and is legally privileged.The information contained in
this e-mail is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution,or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited.If you receive this e-mail in error,please notify the sender immediately at the phone number above and delete the information from your computer.
Please do not copy or use it for any purpose nor disclose its contents to any other person.
From: Stacey Janowitz [mailto:SJanowitz4nasonyeager.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 4:42 PM
To: Igrubin(a)bellsouth.net
Cc: Nathan Nason
Subject: Golden City Highland Beach, LLC
Mr. Rubin —see attached correspondence dated today.
Stacey
Stacey Janowitz,Legal Secretary
Nason,Yeager,Gerson,White&Lioce,P.A.
1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1200
West Palm Beach,Florida 33401
Phone: 561-471-3506
Fax: 561-656-6547
1
F
si anowitzknasonyeaaer.com
www.nasonyea eg r.com
The information contained in this transmission is attorney privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified
that any dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this
communication in error,please notify us immediately by telephone(collect)and return the original message to us at
the above address via the U.S.Postal Service. We will reimburse you for postage and/or telephone expenses. Thank you.
Think Green! please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary.
This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG-www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4765 /Virus Database: 4040/8435 - Release Date: 10/22/14
i
NASON YEAGEK GEKSON
WH ITE L10CE, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
NATHAN E.NASON DIRECT DIAL:
(561)471-3505
E-MAIL ADDRESS:
nnason@nasonyeagencom FAX NUMBER:
October 22,2014 (561)537-7105
VIA EMAIL: lgrubinQbellsouth.net
Leonard G. Rubin, Esq.
701 Northpoint Parkway, Ste.209
West Palm Beach,FL 33407
Re: Golden City Highland Beach,LLC-Our File No: 9956/22676(1B)
Dear Len:
Thank you for forwarding me the motion to intervene filed by Toscana Homeowners
Association, Inc. ("Toscana"). I will be reaching out to Toscana's attorney, James Brady, next week.
Be advised that we do not object to the motion to intervene.
Be advised that this motion has moved to intervene filed by Toscana calls into serious question
the ability of the three(3)members of the board who are also members of Toscana and reside therein
to vote on this variance. We anticipate lodging a formal objection if those board members do not
recuse themselves.
We understand that the clerk has set the variance for hearing before the board of adjustment
for November 10. We request individual meetings with the members of the board who will be voting
on this matter prior to November 190'. In this regard, please attempt to coordinate that with us and let
me know if the City has any lobbyist registration requirements.
Again, we appreciate your attention to this matter and I look forward to working through the
issues with you.
Very truly yours,
NASON, YEAGER, GERSON, WHITE
&LIOCE,P.A.
Nathan E.Nason
cc: Sam Swerdlow
H:\9956N22676\LRubinI0-15-14NEN.doex/sjj
SABADELL UNITED BAN K TOWER
1645 PALM BEACH LAKES BOULEVARD-SUITE 1200-WEST PALM BEACH,FLORIDA 33401
TELEPHONE(561)G86-3307-FACSIMILE(561)686-5442
www.nasonyeager.com
f
Commissioners
sAesia V>-Smith-Gardon;Ghali
-Palm Brach County M>ebaei s � na
Michael F toffretlo
g � —
on � CarC�me A.Prfore=
1
<<Y- omssln Et acs ie11OW
s ----�;
Levitard :=ttubin,?#._
N'orthpoWit Corporate tenter
n #ort#tpoint-Parlonrl ay;_Suite 209-
Wt Aafm Beach;fiL 33407-1950 -
1� RQ014=(33
_ Yawn of Highland_Beach_-Vot�rig CQnfUcts
tea-W. Rubor,
- 1be-Palm Beaeh County[ammrssW_"n Ethics(COE)considered your regaest dor an advisory opinion and-rend ed
its *104 pWItcrneeting ori N --_- 3er6,2014
1:_ Are= rrmerrrbers of the Town ofHFghland.Beach's_Board of Adqustrr►ent:and Appeals(Board)prohibited_-by
the Code ofEfhres=(Code)_ftorh voting on-a=variance-applicatlon,subrhttted�y-a.property Darner to Increase -
the maximum height from 35=feetto-200 feet mrder�f
-oo construct a sncteen story high rise budding,when
u they_ai1 reside irr a=Condominium development ammiately adjacentto the pr_oped protect?
I-. Would-it violate the Code;.or-be an appearance o-impropriety,fior a=riaember of the Board who=has made-
statements
at public meeting about=the pendmg'variance-applrcatlon to ti`ie effect=that_concerned ntizens
_ _
should appear-before the Board-to voice any concerns,that the whingwdl not be changed and that the Board
w4uphold the-statute so that nothing over 35 feerwill be-built-,to vote on the variance application=?
1 -A-member of the Board is prohibited by Sec.3-443(a)from using Ns or her official position to-give himself or-
herself a special financial benefit not shared with similarly situated,members of the general public
.Additionally, Sec. 2=443(c) requires the Board member to abstain and not participate in any matte_r coming-
be€orethe board,which would result in a special finariclal benefit,not shared with similarlysituated members
of the general public,to himself or herself. Financial benefit_is defined by Sec.2=442 and the COE had opined
that this means economic gain-or loss.' in the context-of-this question;for-the benefit=to_be"special,"it must
inure uniquely to the person, rather than benefiting the town, a specific group of homeowners or a
neighborhood!
There is no bright line test or "magic number" of individuals who would need to be similarly affected to
transform a personal gain into a gain shared with similarly situated members of the general public. When the
size of the class affected is large,a prohibited financial gain only arises if there are unique circumstances which
'RQO 10-013
RQO 12-071
The Historic 1916 Palm Beach County Courthouse
300 North Dime Highway, Suite 450, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 • (561) 355-1915 • FAX: (561) 355-1904
Hotline: (877) 766-5920 • E-mail: ethics®palmbeaehcountyethies.com
Website: palmbeaehcountyethics.com
would enable Ai property-owner-tribenefitmore than the-other property owners Within the_Ctass.3 The COED
therefore. loqqks e
it the size a the class and theAkts and circumstances-submitted When making this
determination.
There are a-total of'435 rpsfdenoes in the Toscana Condominium. The COE has previously considered the
"one� -wrcent -rule When- evaluating s -iot financial zgaiq or 10-S S-; The general line-drawn--drawn-it Whefe the
IL �Zlat& otliorr
words;interest of the ofwa,t iff,00,1910s:1% or iss-of ds, 100 or more affected persons-is a
to-trao�m-mtfie benefivdrlosslnto�one-shared -similarly situated members of the
..sUffici6fftlyJ#fge class by
-public
memberssliveirrimb- iia-Cw1y-401� to the
proposed variance-site-aaonelmember
lives approis�t»a#e[y;500-fEet ay, the facts subtriitteit
do i ndt:establish a basis to--differenthate-arnGng-thdr
'facts mem rs,i mproximitnothe`sfte Thefact-thatli . that r
if the- estabrih Ahethr*e�bbard7 y
-Toscana hasbled--a,tnoti-on-;to-intervene,-iritkEi--proceedings f#ie$OWthat-the'group of h6m—eqwher5,by_
rl ft iVi� J�ft of3_40f -f-
WO��of thel d' ii=tOerhl
ff9ly
opposed t the varianceThis distinguished fidib:4-�Mj
ation where=a single homeowner livesimmediately
iadjai* _-aVrqpqs0*vplopM te,and has=voccedIp
.,opposition to-t-heiproject becaus- -wot ld
causeperso"lAnariciaLloss.
Based'-upon 1ke sine--pf-the�classzaffe0ed--Atid-thi�,6tWu facts lbmitted,the economic benefit or loss affects
--
class large;enough so,as-to-remove-any prohibited Anancia-r,benefit. Therefore; the Board membemmay
particip I ote:in-.and-vo-te--orttfiomatter.-
L A member of tfie-B6Jr -15 fed by-Sec: positionla give himself -herself
a special x financial not-shared with similaOrsit0*0 mgeneral p
embers-of the public._ Ad fly.
§ec;2-443(c);requires the-:Board-memberabttafn.and�notparp -i before icl in any Matter coming b re theL
quires the Boar - q -
board_which would fesult-in a special financial beh_&_ft-, not, red lairlysituated menibers of the
the-
board,- - special - - _ ! -
-general public,to-hirriself-io-rhersilf.
Comments made by a Board,member at a public:meetin_g---c bai t h-M-beor-the Boardi may view the pending ing
-.0 ow- pe
application-do.,nott ve-him or her a special financialbefiefitTkCq000*nbt regulate speech or-comments,
which a board member may Make under thei? cireuriistances SimiUrly, While a004 nceof
lrhproprI#ty,0 Is a guiding-prin diple underlying the Codeand sh-ould.-be-lavoided,itis nota stated-offense under
the Code: However,_other-laws,rules-or regulations outside of tOE-Juilsdiction may be involved.
Based Upon the facts submitted,the Board memmber'stbir mefits-would not violate-the Code or prohibit flim
from-voting-on the rnafter.
FACTS:
GENERAL:
You represent the Town of Highland Beach. As suchi you act as legal counsel to the Town's Board of
Adjustment and Appeals(Board). The board has received an application for a variance relating to 7.35 acre
parcel of land located in the residential (low density)district. The applicant seeks to increase the maximum
height from 35 to 209 feet in order to construct a sixteen story high rise building.
Id.
4 RQO 14-006
RQO 12-058
The Historic 1916 Palm Beach County Courthouse
300 North DW-e Highway. Suite 450, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 - (561) 355-1915 a FAX: (561) 355-1904
Hotline: (877) 766-5920 * E-mail: ethics@palmbeachcountyethics.com
Website: paImbeachcountyethics.com
FACTST-RELEVANT TOQUEMON 1:
Three of the seven-B- oard members own unjts:and-reside in.a-condorninium-adjacent to-the property. The-
condominium
he
xond-ominhurn (T consists of three residential-towers; two-sixteeni-story-and one seventeen-story
.buildings. Each to-Wer -consists- -of approxinia-tely 145 units. Therefore the Toscana complex= contains
pie
approximately 435`-residences Two Board members live in a tower immediately-adjacent to the proposed
project-while.tWe-other-lives in abuildin9.approxiirriab*500 feetaway.
TbjefT#soo4iOfO6bWhL,rsAssociation (AssoEia 6)'ha! filed4-motion�t-o-iiit6rvent-in the proceeding aricl IS
seeking -eights, -including cross-examination The association, by virtue of a condominium
Pam con m um
declaration, owns3all-oPthe--common property fheCQMbl0k E-acKBoiitcl-Member-1--sa tiiemberof"the
Association-by vinue-df the-ir-unit ownership:
One-ofthe Board members attended a public. At the meeting,a-memberof
-th,e.publi_c.-expressed-her concerq gr
an!:
fttK y
--the"tranquility-of Higllon_t
Th d me lespono -thathg:servesaSa[member and that-all concenetfcitiie s-
should
attend-the meetings:;He further indicatedthBoard- nembeis are"very_strict--inAftese matters and that the_
ago
height.--Y'e'quiremenhwon't-be xhanged. He xpounded4ur-thofifiat-*Abbody-W that rig ht- AW�-fo bufld-a
Sixteen storyUflftg In-conclusion he offere-cl:that we Aiphold-theistatuteand thezeningy-and nothing
beyond 35 feet-will_bebUllt.."
-LEGAL BASIS:
�Tftefegal basis for thisopinionin§2-442_ArVdi§2443(a _&.(e)of the Palm Beach County-Code Of-Ethics-,
i
-SettiOn-274142,D6fthitions.
The7following-words,terms and phrases;when used-in-this article.�shall tiave-.the-meariitigs-asc--r-lbed to them inAhis
section,-except where-the-context-clearly-indicates-a different Me ihiii-
Rhanclat -behefit- in-cludes any money, service, Acense, iperinit. contract, authorization, loan, travel,
e nte-
rtainmen ,ho spitality,gratuity,or any-promise Of arty bf-these,or anything-else of value-This term does
not include campafgn'contributions-authorized by law.
Section 2-443.-Prohibited conduct.
(a) Mi-suse-of-public office or employment An official or employee shall not use his or her official position or
office,or take or fail to take any action,or influence iothers to-take or fail to take any action,in a manner
which he or she knows or should know with-the exercise of reasonable care will result in a special financial
benefit,not shared with similarly situated members of the general public,for any of the following persons
or entities:
(1) Himself or herself,
(c) Disclosure of voting conflicts. County and municipal officials as applicable shall abstain from voting and
not participate in any matter that will result In a special financial benefit as set forth in subsections(a)(1)
through(7)above.The official shall publicly disclose the nature of the conflict and when abstaining from
the vote,shall complete and file a State of Florida Commission on Ethics Conflict Form 88 pursuant to the
requirements of Florida Statutes,§112.3143. Simultaneously with filing Form 8B,the official shall submit
a copy of the completed form to the county commission on ethics. Officials who abstain and disclose a
voting conflict as set forth herein,shall not be in violation of subsection(a),provided the official does not
otherwise use his or her office to take or fail to take any action,or influence others to take or fail to take
The Historic 1916 Palm Beach County Courthouse
300 North Dixie Highway, Suite 450, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 a (561) 355-1915 - FAX: (561) 355-1904
Hotline: (877) 766-5920 - E-mail: ethics@palmbeacheountyethics.com
Website: palmbeachcountyethics.com
any action,in any other manoef which_tte or she loNvsor should know w,th.tt►e.exercise of reasonable
caret will result in a spescfal f-nannal benot,shared with-similarly,.situated members_ofthe general
public,:assetfQrtt�msukrseetiortis°ra��l�ttirou�Cr(7.�- -
This opinion connstrues the Palm Beach County=Code of Ethics Ordnance and is based upon the facts and
- - - -
circumstances that you have su mttted- it is not applicable to-any conflict under state law: l6quiries regarding
passible=conflttts=under_state law shoulcl.E a d�recf d to tris Sate flfi Florida tomrdission=on Ethics.
Please feel3free to contact=meat 561 353= �i if_l=zaa of any -thrs=matter.
Sincerely,
Leven P Cullen; - -
Executwe`"rector -
SrP�gal
LEONARD G. RuBIN, P.A.
NORTHPOINT CORPORATE CENTER
701 NORTHPOINT PARKWAY, SUITE 209
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33407-1950
LEONARD G.RiBIN TELEPHONE: (561)721-1683
FLORIDA BAR BOARD CERTIFIED FACSIMILE: (561)686-8764
CITY COUNTY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY
October 7, 2014
Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics
300 North Dixie Highway, Suite 450
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Attn: Advisory Opinions
Re: Request for Advisory Opinion/Town of Highland Beach
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The undersigned represents the Town of Highland Beach and acts as legal
counsel to the Town's Board of Adjustment and Appeals ("Board"). The Town is in
receipt of a variance application for a vacant 7.35 acre parcel of real property located
within the Town's RML (Residential Multiple-Family Low Density) zoning district
("Property"). The property owner is seeking an increase in the maximum height within
the RML district from 35 feet to 209 feet to construct a sixteen story residential high-rise.
The Board consists of seven members. A vote of four (4) members is required to
grant a variance from the Town Code. Three of the seven members reside within the
Toscana condominium, which is adjacent to the northern boundary of the Property.
Toscana consists of three residential towers, two sixteen-story structures and one
seventeen-story structure. Two of the Board members reside within the southernmost
tower, immediately adjacent to the Property, and one Board member resides in the
northernmost tower, located more than five hundred feet from the Property boundary.
The Town is seeking an advisory opinion as to whether Section 2-443 of the
County Ethics Code prohibits the Board members who reside within Toscana from
voting on the variance application. Section 2-443 generally prohibits an advisory board
member from using his or official position or office in a manner in which he or she
knows or should know with the exercise of reasonable care would result in "a special
financial benefit" not shared with similarly situated members of the general public. This
prohibition includes voting or participating in any discussion. In prior opinions, the
Commission has determined that financial benefit, in the context of the Ethics Code,
constitutes economic gain or loss. See RQO 10-13.
I
Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics
October 7, 2014
Page 2
Each of the three Toscana towers consists of approximately 145 units. As the
Commission has previously opined, the determination of whether a matter rises to the
level of prohibited conduct and a voting conflict turns on whether the public official's
special financial benefit is shared with similarly situated members of the general public.
There is no bright line test to determine the number of individuals who would need to be
similarly affected to transform a personal gain or loss into a gain or loss shared with
similarly situated members of the general public. Therefore, the issue turns on the size
of the class of persons who are affected by the measure. As recognized in RQO 14-
006, the general line drawn by the Florida Commission on Ethics involves situations
where the interest of the public official involves one percent or less of the class.
In this case, irrespective of whether all three residents of Toscana are treated in
the same manner or the two residents in the tower immediately adjacent to the Property
are treated separately, the one percent test is not met and the potential economic gain
or loss occasioned by the grant of a variance to construct a high-rise tower on the
Property does not appear to provide a unique benefit that would trigger Section 2-443 of
the County Ethics Code. Nevertheless, the Town is mindful that a voting conflict may
exist if the location, ownership or size of the Board member's property in relation to the
proposed project would provide a unique benefit or detriment. See RQO 12-071.
Furthermore, the Town recently received a motion to intervene in the variance
proceeding filed by the Toscana Homeowner's Association ("Association"), seeking "full-
party rights, including the right of cross-examination." The Association is the owner of
all common property within the Toscana development, exclusive of the actual residential
units. By virtue of their ownership of units within Toscana, each of three Board
members at issue are members of the Association.
Notwithstanding the fact that the size of persons affected may be sufficiently
large so that the financial benefit or detriment is not "special," the Town seeks a
determination from the Commission as to whether a conflict exists given the fact that the
Toscana condominium is immediately adjacent to the Property and the Association
seeks to intervene in a quasi-judicial proceeding in which the Board is the final decision-
maker.
Should you be in need of any additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact me. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Leonard G. Rubin
LG R/I
cc: Kathleen Weiser, Town Manger
Michael DeSorcy, Building Official
LEONARD G. RUBIN, P.A.
NORTHPOINT CORPORATE CENTER
701 NORTHPOINT PARKWAY,SUITE 209
WEST PALM BEACH,FLORIDA 33407-1950
LEONARD G.RUBIN TELEPHONE: (561)'721-1683
FLORIDA BAR BOARD CERTIFIED FACSIMILE: (561)686-8764
CITY COUNTY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY
October 8, 2014
Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics
300 North Dixie Highway, Suite 450
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Attn: Advisory Opinions
Re: Request for Advisory Opinion/Town of Highland Beach
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The undersigned represents the Town of Highland Beach and acts as legal
counsel to the Town's Board of Adjustment and Appeals ("Board"). The Town is in
receipt of a variance application for a vacant 7.35 acre parcel of real property located
within the Town's RML (Residential Multiple-Family Low Density) zoning district
("Property"). The property owner is seeking an increase in the maximum height within
the RML district from 35 feet to 209 feet to construct a sixteen story residential high-rise.
The Board consists of seven members. A vote of four (4) members is required to
grant a variance from the Town Code. The Town is seeking an advisory opinion on two
issues relating to the variance application.
1. Board members residing in adjacent condominium development
Three of the seven Board members reside within the Toscana condominium,
which is adjacent to the northern boundary of the Property. Toscana consists of three
residential towers, two sixteen-story structures and one seventeen-story structure. Two
of the Board members reside within the southernmost tower, immediately adjacent to
the Property, and one Board member resides in the northernmost tower, located more
than five hundred feet from the Property boundary.
The Town is seeking an advisory opinion as to whether Section 2-443 of the
County Ethics Code prohibits the Board members who reside within Toscana from
voting on the variance application. Section 2-443 generally prohibits an advisory board
member from using his or her official position or office in a manner in which he or she
knows or should know with the exercise of reasonable care would result in "a special
financial benefit" not shared with similarly situated members of the general public. This
prohibition includes voting or participating in any discussion. In prior opinions, the
Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics
October 8, 2014
Page 2
Commission has determined that financial benefit, in the context of the Ethics Code,
constitutes economic gain or loss. See RQO 10-13.
Each of the three Toscana towers consists of approximately 145 units. As the
Commission has previously opined, the determination of whether a matter rises to the
level of prohibited conduct and a voting conflict turns on whether the public official's
special financial benefit is shared with similarly situated members of the general public.
There is no bright line test to determine the number of individuals who would need to be
similarly affected to transform a personal gain or loss into a gain or loss shared with
similarly situated members of the general public. Therefore, the issue turns on the size
of the class of persons who are affected by the measure. As recognized in RQO 14-
006, the general line drawn by the Florida Commission on Ethics involves situations
where the interest of the public official involves one percent or less of the class.
In this case, irrespective of whether all three residents of Toscana are treated in
the same manner or the two residents in the tower immediately adjacent to the Property
are treated separately, the one percent test is not met and the potential economic gain
or loss occasioned by the grant of a variance to construct a high-rise tower on the
Property does not appear to provide a unique benefit that would trigger Section 2-443 of
the County Ethics Code. Nevertheless, the Town is mindful that a voting conflict may
exist if the location, ownership or size of the Board member's property in relation to the
proposed project would provide a unique benefit or detriment. See RQO 12-071.
Furthermore, the Town recently received a motion to intervene in the variance
proceeding filed by the Toscana Homeowner's Association ("Association"), seeking "full-
party rights, including the right of cross-examination." The Association is the owner of
all common property within the Toscana development, exclusive of the actual residential
units. By virtue of their ownership of units within Toscana, each of three Board
members at issue are members of the Association.
Notwithstanding the fact that the size of persons affected may be sufficiently
large so that the financial benefit or detriment is not "special," the Town seeks a
determination from the Commission as to whether a conflict exists given the fact that the
Toscana condominium is immediately adjacent to the Property and the Association
seeks to intervene in a quasi-judicial proceeding in which the Board is the final decision-
maker.
2. Public comments made by Board member
The subject variance application has been a topic of discussion within the Town.
At the August 29, 2014, Town Commission workshop meeting, a member of the public
voiced her concern that the subject variance would destroy "the tranquility of Highland
Beach." As set forth in the minutes, in response to this comment, a member of the
Board publicly stated as follows:
He indicated that he serves as a member of the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals and asks all concerned residents to come to their meetings and
express their concerns regarding zoning issues. The Board members are
` Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics
October 8, 2014
Page 3
very strict when it comes to zoning. If the zoning issue is 35 feet then it
won't be changed. The federal government forced Highland Beach to
build Toscana which is 16 stories high. Nobody has that right again.
Whatever the zoning issue is that is the zoning issue. Any concerned
resident should come before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals when
this developer is presenting his plan and they can voice their opinion.
Then they can see that we will uphold the statute and the zoning and
nothinq beyond 35 feet will be built (emphasis added).
Pursuant to established case law, a variance request is quasi-judicial proceeding,
and the Board is charged with determining whether the evidence presented at the
hearing satisfies the eight criteria for a variance set forth in Section 30-40(e) of the
Town Code. Section 30-40(m) of the Town Code requires that in granting a variance,
the Board specifically find that: the application complies with the criteria set forth
therein; the reasons set forth in the application justify the grant of a variance; the
variance is the minimum variance necessary to make possible the reasonable use of
the land; and the variance is in harmony with the Town Code and will not be detrimental
to the public welfare.
Given the Board member's statement that the variance will not be granted prior
to the actual hearing and presentation of evidence, the Town is concerned that in the
event Board member votes against the variance application and the variance is
ultimately denied, the Board member may be accused of misuse of public office
pursuant to Section 2-443(a) or (b) of the County Ethics Code. While the Town
recognizes that this determination may be outside the Commission's purview, the Town
seeks the Commission's guidance as to whether the public statement creates either a
voting conflict or an appearance of impropriety that would prevent the Board member
from participating in the hearing and voting on the variance application.
Should you be in need of any additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact me. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Leonard G. Rubin
LG R/I
cc: Kathleen Weiser, Town Manger
Michael DeSorcy, Building Official
LEONARD G. RUBIN P.A.
I:i
NORTHPOINT CORPORATE CENTER 3 7 0
701 NORTHPOINT PARKWAY,SUITE 209
NVEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33407-1950
LEONARD G.RUBIN TELEPHONE: (561)721-1683
FLORIDA BAR BOARD CERTIFIED FACSIMILE: (561)686-8764
CITY COUNTY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY
October 10, 2014
Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics
300 North Dixie Highway, Suite 450 OCT 13 2014
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Attn: Advisory Opinions HIGHLAND BEACH
BUILDING DEPARTMENT_
Re: Request for Advisory Opinion/Town of Highland Bea
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The undersigned represents the Town of Highland Beach and acts as legal
counsel to the Town's Board of Adjustment and Appeals ("Board"). The Town is in
receipt of a variance application for a vacant 7.35 acre parcel of real property located
within the Town's RML (Residential Multiple-Family Low Density) zoning district
("Property"). The property owner is seeking an increase in the maximum height within
the RML district from 35 feet to 209 feet to construct a sixteen story residential high-rise.
The Board consists of seven members. A vote of four(4) members is required to
grant a variance from the Town Code. The Town is seeking an advisory opinion on two
issues relating to the variance application.
1. Board members residing in adjacent condominium development
Three of the seven Board members reside within the Toscana condominium,
which is adjacent to the northern boundary of the Property. Toscana consists of three
residential towers, two sixteen-story structures and one seventeen-story structure. Two
of the Board members reside within the southernmost tower, immediately adjacent to
the Property, and one Board member resides in the northernmost tower, located more
than five hundred feet from the Property boundary.
The Town is seeking an advisory opinion as to whether Section 2-443 of the
County Ethics Code prohibits the Board members who reside within Toscana from
voting on the variance application. Section 2-443 generally prohibits an advisory board
member from using his or her official position or office in a manner in which he or she
knows or should know with the exercise of reasonable care would result in "a special
financial benefit" not shared with similarly situated members of the general public. This
prohibition includes voting or participating in any discussion. In prior opinions, the
Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics �_E DD
October 10, 2014 F1
Page 2
OCT 13 2014
Commission has determined that financial benefit, in the context c f theH�$�%[QM*,H
constitutes economic gain or loss. See RQO 10-13. BUILDING DEPARTMENT
i----
Each of the three Toscana towers consists of approximately 145 units. As the
Commission has previously opined, the determination of whether a matter rises to the
level of prohibited conduct and a voting conflict turns on whether the public official's
special financial benefit is shared with similarly situated members of the general public.
There is no bright line test to determine the number of individuals who would need to be
similarly affected to transform a personal gain or loss into a gain or loss shared with
similarly situated members of the general public. Therefore, the issue turns on the size
of the class of persons who are affected by the measure. As recognized in RQO 14-
006, the general line drawn by the Florida Commission on Ethics involves situations
where the interest of the public official involves one percent or less of the class.
In this case, irrespective of whether all three residents of Toscana are treated in
the same manner or the two residents in the tower immediately adjacent to the Property
are treated separately, the one percent test is not met and the potential economic gain
or loss occasioned by the grant of a variance to construct a high-rise tower on the
Property does not appear to provide a unique benefit or detriment that would trigger
Section 2-443 of the County Ethics Code. Nevertheless, the Town is mindful that a
voting conflict may exist if the location, ownership or size of the Board member's
property in relation to the proposed project provided such a unique benefit or detriment,
See RQO 12-071. Furthermore, the Town recently received a motion to intervene in the
variance proceeding filed by the Toscana Homeowner's Association ("Association"),
seeking "full-party Fights, including the right of cross-examination." The Association is
the owner of all common property within the Toscana development, exclusive of the
actual residential units. By virtue of their ownership of units within Toscana, each of
three Board members at issue is a member of the Association.
Notwithstanding the fact that the size of persons affected may be sufficiently
large so that the financial benefit or detriment is not "special," the Town seeks a
determination from the Commission as to whether a conflict exists given the fact that the
Toscana condominium is immediately adjacent to the Property and the Association
seeks to intervene in a quasi-judicial proceeding in which the Board is the final decision-
maker.
2. Public comments made by Board member
The subject variance application has been a topic of discussion within the Town.
At the August 29, 2014, Town Commission workshop meeting, a member of the public
voiced her concern that the subject variance would destroy "the tranquility of Highland
Beach." As set forth in the minutes, in response to this comment, a member of the
Board publicly stated as follows:
He indicated that he serves as a member of the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals and asks all concerned residents to come to their meetings and
express their concerns regarding zoning issues. The Board members are
Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics
October 10, 2014
Page 3
very strict when it comes to zoning. If the zoning issue is 35 feet then it
won't be changed. The federal government forced Highland Beach to
build Toscana which is 16 stories high. Nobody has that right again.
Whatever the zoning issue is that is the zoning issue. Any concerned
resident should come before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals when
this developer is presenting his plan and they can voice their opinion.
Then they can see that we will uphold the statute and the zoning and
nothing beyond 35 feet will be built (emphasis added).
Pursuant to established case law, a variance request is quasi-judicial proceeding,
and the Board is charged with determining whether the evidence presented at the
hearing satisfies the eight criteria for a variance set forth in Section 30-40(e) of the
Town Code. Section 30-40(m) of the Town Code requires that in granting a variance,
the Board specifically find that: the application complies with the criteria set forth
therein; the reasons set forth in the application justify the grant of a variance; the
variance is the minimum variance necessary to make possible the reasonable use of
the land; and the variance is in harmony with the Town Code and will not be detrimental
to the public welfare.
Given the Board member's statement that the variance will not be granted prior
to the actual hearing and the presentation of any evidence, the Town is concerned that
in the event Board member votes against the variance application and the variance is
ultimately denied, the Board member may be accused of misuse of public office
pursuant to Section 2-443(a) or (b) of the County Ethics Code. While the Town
recognizes that this determination may be outside the Commission's purview, the Town
seeks the Commission's guidance as to whether the public statement creates either a
voting conflict or an appearance of impropriety that would prevent the Board member
from participating in the hearing and voting on the variance application.
Should you be in need of any additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact me. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
qED
F55)
Leonard G. Rubin
LGR/l
HIGIMG H060 PAP'BEPCH -T
"Etq
BUJI-DDE
cc: Kathleen Weiser, Town Manger
Michael DeSorcy, Building Official
Beverly Brown, Town Clerk
LEONARD G. RLBnv, P.A.
NORTHPOINT CORPORATE CENTER
701 NORTHPOINT PARKWAY,SUITE 209
WEST PALM BEACH,FLORIDA 33407-1950
LEONARD G.RUBIN TELEPHONE: (561)721-1683
FLORIDA BAR BOARD CERTIFIED Rcsim]LE: (561)686-8764
CITY COUNTY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY
October 28, 2014
Via electronic transmission (n nasont&nasonyeager.com)
Nathan E. Nason, Esquire
Nason Yeager, et at.
1654 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1200
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Re- Town of Highland Beach/Golden City Highland Beach, LLC
Dear Nat:
I am receipt of your letter dated October 22, 2014. 1 will inform the Chair of the
Board of Adjustment- and Appeals that your client has no objection to the Motion to
Intervene filed by the Toscana Homeowner's Association, Inc.
With respect to the Board members residing within Toscana, the Town requested
an advisory opinion from the Commission on Ethics as to whether the circumstances
presented, including the Association's filing of a Motion to Intervene, would prohibit
those members from voting on your client's variance application. The proposed opinion
indicated that there is no conflict; however, the Town will not receive a final opinion until
after the Commission's November 6t' meeting.
Each member of the Board is free to decide whether he or she wishes to meet
with an applicant prior to the hearing date. To Town does not coordinate such
meetings. To that end, I have attached a list of the Board members that includes each
member's contact information.
While the Town has no separate lobbying requirements, any lobbying of elected
or appointed municipal officials must comply with Section 2-354 of the County Code.
This section requires all lobbyists to sign a contact log when conducting lobbying
activities at Town Hall and to inform the Town of the scheduling and nature any lobbying
that occurs outside of Town Hall.
Nathan E. Nason, Esquire
October 28, 2014
Page 2
Should you have any questions or be in need of additional clarification, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Leonard G. Rubin
LGR/l
cc: Kathleen Weiser, Town Manager
Beverly Brown, Town Clerk
Michael DeSorcy, Building Official
Len Rubin
From: Rosalie DeMartino[rdemartino@ci.highland-beach,fl.us]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 11:32 AM
To: Lan Rubin
Subject: Board of Adjustment Members
The following is the Board of Adjustment member's info.
Barry Axelrod
2908 S. Ocean Blvd.
Home(561)279-9571 Cell(732)580-9150 Email: mbal8o-oomcastnet
Barry Donaldson
3700 S. Ocean Blvd.#1608-09
(561)445-6446 Email: bdonaidson(Mdonaldsongroup.com
Joel Lei nson
3740 S.Ocean Blvd.#2081
Home(561)455-4325 Cell(978)815-0087 Email: ileinson(&-aol.com
Bryan Perilan
3740 S. Ocean Blvd.#1207
561-526-8450 Email: bryonperilmanC,gmaiil.com
Evelyn Weiss-
J400 S. Ocean Blvd.#4A
(561)279-0616 Email: bocaevOhotmaii.com
William Weitz
1135 Boca Cove Lane
Home(561)330-0078 Cell(561)654-8446 Email: docwekz(&.aol.com
Peter Rodis
3224 S.Ocean Blvd.#216B
Home(661)274-4034 Cell(917)653-9046 Email- peterrodisOqmall.com
Rosalie DeMarVno
Administrative Assistant
Town of Highland Beach
3614 S. Ocean Blvd.
Highland Beach, Florida 33487
P: (561)278-4548
F: (561)276-9829
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG-www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4765/Virus Database:4040/8441 -Release Date: 10/23/14
1
TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
3614 S. OCEAN BLVD.
HIGHLAND BEACH, FL 33487
VARIANCE APPLICATION
GOLDEN CITY HIGHLAND BEACH, LLC
a Florida limited liability company-,
Plaintiff,
VS.
TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH, a
Florida municipal corporation,
i
Defendant.
MOTION TO INTERVENE ,
TOSCANA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. ('Toscana'), and moves the Board of
Adjustment for permission to intervene in the within proceedings, with full-party rights, including
the right of cross-examination pertaining to the hearing currently scheduled for November 19,
2014, at 9:30 a.m.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent to the
Chair of the Board of Adjustment, on this day of October, 2014, and the Town Clerk of the
Town of Highland Beach, 3614 South Ocean Boulevard, Highland Beach, FL 33487.
ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
Attorney for Toscana Homeowners Association,
Inc.
200 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
954-713-7618 Phone
954-713-7718 Fax
icbradv@afatek com '
— I
i
I
F
I
B C
JAMES C. BRA ESQ. ;
Florida Bar No. 04 j
I
f
I
111930949.1 '
TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
3614 S. OCEAN BLVD.
HIGHLAND BEACH, FL 33487
GOLDEN CITY HIGHLAND BEACH, LLC VARIANCE APPLICATION
a Florida limited liability company,
Applicant, RECEIVED
vs. NOV 10 2014
TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH, a
Florida municipal corporation, Town ®f HI hiand Beach, FL
Town.
MOTION TO INTERVENE
ANDREW ROBINS. ("Robins") by and through his undersigned counsel, moves that the
Board of Adjustment grant permission for Robins to intervene in the above-referenced
proceedings, with full-party rights, including the right of cross-examination pertaining to the
hearing currently scheduled for November 19, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. Robins is the owner a property
directly east of the property subject to the variance application. The Robins property would be
materially and adversely affected should the variance be granted.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent to the
Chair of the Board of Adjustment, on this rday of November, 2014, and the Town Clerk of
the Town of Highland Beach, 3614 South Ocean Boulevard, Highland Beach, FL 33487.
SHUTTS & BOWEN LLC
Attorney for ANDRE ROBINS.
525 Okeechobee B levard, Suite 1100
West Palm Beac , Florida 33401
�... By.
i HAR Y E. YER, , SQ.
Florida Bar N 154024
561-650-8517 Phone
561-822-5522 Fax
hoyer&shutts.com
WPBDOCS 8583102 1
By: G`
ALFRED A. LaSORTE, ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 325457
561-650-8540 Phone
561-822-5501 Fax
alasortea shutts.com
WPBDOCS 8583102 1
PERKINS PERSHES
LAW FIRM
November 18, 2014
Via Email Oakes ci.Highland-Beach.F1.US) and Hand Delivery
Town of Highland Beach
Board of Adjustment and Appeals
3614 S.Ocean Boulevard
Highland Beach, Florida 33487
RE:Variance Petition#37015 submitted by Golden City Highland Beach,LLC ("Developer")
for PCN 24-43-47-04-00-001-0030 ("Property")
Gentlemen:
This office represents Robert N. Kennedy,the resident of 3813 S.Ocean Boulevard,Highland Beach,
Florida,who OBJECTS to the granting of the variance requested in the Petition.
The current Zoning Code of the City was adopted in 2000 with a height restriction on structures of
35 foot maximum with a maximum density of 6 units per acre.With several large structures already
present in the town,the restriction sought to stop development that would lead to heavy traffic
congestion,like that found in Aventura,and the canyon effect found in Miami Beach and Galt Ocean
Mile.The Code has been successful fostering the type beachside community sought by the residents.
The Code allows for variance when certain conditions are met to allow fairness and address special
conditions and circumstances that may arise not created by the applicant.In this case the
requirements for variance are not met and this variance request is nothing more than an attempt at
spot zoning to allow the Developer to reap a financial windfall at the expense of the City and its
residents.
The Developer in an arms-length transaction paid what the land was worth.At the time of
acquisition of the property,the restrictions already existed as to density,height,including the fact
that almost 90%of the property was protected mangrove and wet lands. The restrictions were
reflected in the price paid.Thus the Developer suffered no financial hardship.If the purchase was
not a good business decision,the City need not throw out its Zoning Code to help the Developer.
The property is fully able to be developed within the Code restrictions,although not allowing the
tower sought by the Developer.These restrictions set maximums and do not guarantee that every
parcel can reach such maximums. Having mangroves on the property is not a special condition
warranting variance.The mangroves are present on multiple properties and were present of the
office(561)910-8923 1 fax(561)423-3989 1 3839 NW Boca Raton Boulevard,Suite 200, Boca Raton, Florida 33431 www.perkinspershes.com
Developer's property long before it was purchased.The desire to build a multi-story tower does not
itself create a special condition.
A sixteen story building constructed will negatively impact air and light rights of neighboring
residents and negatively impact on the character of the Town as intended by the Town commission
and the Code.Being across from my client's single family home would constitute a deprivation of
building and air rights and impact property values for the benefit only of the Developer.This
variance does not meet the Code requirements,is improper and should be denied
Thanking you for your consideration, I remain,
Very truly yours,
Robert E. Per es,Esq
Perkins Pershes LLC
3839 NW Boca Raton Boulevard Suite 200
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
561-910-8923
rpershes@perkinspershes.com
Valerie Oakes
From: Alfaro,Janice L <jlalfaro@amstein.com>
Sent Wednesday, November 12,2014 3:09 PM
To: Valerie Oakes
cc Igrubin@bellsouth.net;jcbrady@amstein.com;Ilyne Mendelson
Subject Opposition to Golden City Highland Beach Development- Board of Adjustment Hearing
November 19,2014
Attachments: 20141112145120.pdf;20141112144950.pdf;JANICEPDF
Dear Ms.Oakes:
We are attaching a copy of the Quitclaim Deed,along with letters in opposition,Sec.30-4.0,of the Code of Ordinances,
pertaining to the above-referenced development application that will be heard on November 19,2014.
Janice L Alfaro
Legal Assistant
ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
www.amstein.com
200 East Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale,Rodda 33301-2299
Phone:954.713.7658
Fax:954.713.7758
jlalfaro@amstein.com
8.
Accompffshed lawyers who understand roar aoals.
Offices in Illinois, Rodda,and Wisconsin
This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged information.
If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify
the sender by reply transmission and .delete the message without copying or disclosing it.
1
i
Pian to:i 1, s n-�a.! d own%" J'1��'�'���
'� osis
CRII 2*13® %MM
Aft� tS W 239" M 0939
Ltd WMAD I*Ab G
�
1► CwtTs nm&
ICU
Doo L"
`mo tfim a
ry awl°
• 16
QUITCLAim DEED
f
7bb gAblWm deed merle betweeex
� emim60�Bm�i�>��emel
�•� c�ri i ,of Iasi iaewpb leoat,BomRdmk PefdDee*U8&
Trcfocawfiaiae�os�idere6a� ° ofTeanoias,�a,eoapta.�id�aL�d��wle�ed.
>� aeesie�oeb� ofTnudooesbimo�.oumdpnop"
oorewi�oaaeei
8�dt O�ix a
F1�eW�3347
lnaeteiit'ee C�afBoealtete�t7a■iyrafl�peei„eUtea[Pla�ide,deean'6edesioBoee�
LMiDeuafp =7b§8sldb3Wh attoMw&MhddBedkm4sTWmddp47
�s���i r W Deed G�e■■I,i►,IlerYes bis 6et■een rie Lh�eeeeeht
wlfekeweq ewi ie d�eF�Pesr flr$dlalv■i 1i4/(ArIA)M reeeeii`leife
leeui aflai�Defek Crerg►spleeide.
1pftd xk ftA Am�ALM
T@V&wmAaD*m*mommml%iem Mmmm!e,clodgWvoeer•oes4memvbbebe*%aidisea�mio�e.
ea■eiim�eerie,ieeieea,ad pea8ts freieoE
7b Lamand ft bo iL A and do*dw dm pm iem,wide mpet m my web Gddm ally B~Demi
� hire(I:A ..dYeTeeiQa�eleee�eefbeeees
lrwireew�iaeee�1ff�S1YII�AlY frRNLeeiaeeeeto lie dgeed�aereseet�ebare: ++`
wt�eea 1:t�e6oeeee 16aoa �'�
• i
Miloewt ecoid Wee � i
COW"W TwtN MMX !
'tf.melba iooa.est.ae ad■a~t eha m m t66dw GMHu by a MUtltM..io baa b m low
s�eaieed�tfetaoisraeeDoet�iieret6eera f
i
Y ost*4eeee ie�o moeleepe as 4eb
.��taws a[Plorlie • ' us paapaett.
.Poo
,�e�asero�► !��
Book25986/Page939 Page 1 of 1
TOSCANA HOME OWNERS IN OPPOSITION OF DEVELOPMENT OF GOLDEN CITY
UNIT NUMBERS
1. 201
2. 204
3. 207
4. 208B
S. 210
6. 302
7. 305
8. 308
9. 308a
10. 402
11. 403
12. 509
13. S10
14. 602
15. 607
16. 609
17. 710
18. 803
19. 806
20. 807
21. 902
2-2. 903
23. 904
24. 908
25. 909
26. 1001
27. 1003
28. 1005 j
29. 1006 i
30. 1009
31. 1081
32. 1101
33. 1102
34. 1103
35. 1105
36. 1106
37. 1110
38. 1203
39. 1204
40. 1208
41. 1210
42. 1401
43. 1405
44. 1410
i
I
112040180.1
45- 1503
46. 15%
47. 1510
48- 1601
i
49. 1602
50. 1605
51- 1606
52. 1610
53. 1701
54. 1703
55- 1705
56. 1709
57. 1710
58- 1809
59- 1810
1
I
I
1
t
4
ii
i
I �
1
i
V
1
I
i'
1
111
112040180.1
Brady, James C.
i From: Therese Schwab<t3544@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 3:24 PM
To: Brady, James C.
Subject: Golden City
I am the owner of unit 201 in Toscana South condominium.I will not be in residence at the condominium on the date of
the board of adjustment hearing on the application for variance by Golden city.nevertheless I want to share my opinion
with the board . I am opposed to the application to increase the height and number of stories of the proposed
development.Several years ago the town commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the height of
buildings in this Zoning district to 35 feet or three stores.To approve this application would,in effect,nullify those
revisions and substitute the non elected board for the town commission based upon the information provided to me,I
conclude that there is no legal hardship present and the applicant merely wants the town to save it from a bad decision
.The application should be denied. I
Therese and lames Schwab
r
Sent from my Wad
I
l
f�
I
i
i
I
f
I
r
l
I
I
l
f
1
r
i
I
l
s
4
I
i
t
l
1
i
I
Affaro, Janice L
From: udovonkarhan@bluewin.ch
Sent: Wednesday, November 05,2014 9:12 AM
To: Brady,James C.
Cc: 'Carla Blunck'
I Subject: TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH PUBLIC HEARING
i Dear Mr. Brady,
i
I am the owner of Unit 204 in the TOSCANA South Condominium.Although I will attend the meeting on November 19"',
2014, 1 std want to put in writing my deep concern as to the proposed development next to our building. I AM TOTALLY
i OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT.
Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulation to limit the height of build'
zoningdistrict to 35 feet or three stories.To g � this
approve this Application would, in effect, nullify those revisions and substitute
the non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon the information that was provided, I conclude that there is
no legal hardship present, and the Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a very bad decision.THE
APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED ONCE AND FOR ALL.When we purchased our Unit we were told by the
developer that NO DEVELOPMENT would be built on that site and on that basis we purchased.The property next to our
building is mangrove territory and a nature preserve,which was told to us. How can any construction be allowed on such
a sensitive area in any event?
With kind regards
zJ&0A von K9fi n
Forchwaidstrasse 42c
CH -6318 Walchwil
Tel.#: ++41-41-740 3209
Fax#: ++41-41-740 3219
Florida address:
3740 South Ocean Blvd. Apt#204
I
Highland Beach, FL 33487
Tel+ Fax: (561)276 4778
i
I
I
I
i
i
I'
I
f
i
I
i
1 r
Brady, James C.
From: Angie Barillari<angie.barillaric@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05,201411:29 AM
To: Brady, James C.
Subject: Re: Toscana Owner
Please note Corrected copy attached: Toscana Unit 207 South.
I am the owner of Unit 207 in Toscana South Condominium. I will not be in residence at the Condominium on the date of
the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by Golden City. Nevertheless, I want to share my opinion
with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the
regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three stories. To approve this Application
would, in effect, nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon
information provide to me, I conclude that there is no legal hardship present, and the Applicant merely wants the Town to
save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Angelina and Edward Barillari
Toscana unit 207 South
On Wed,Nov 5,2014 at 10:48 AM,Brady,James C. <cbrady(&Amstein.com>wrote:
Thank you.
jcb
i
i
James C. Brady
Attorney at Law j
I
r
ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
200 Et Ola
as Las s Boulevard
e and
Suite 1000
i
i
I
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-2299
Phone:954.713.7618 1 Fax:954.713.7718
i
Brady, James C.
From: Susan<susanseinick@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05,2014 9:16 AM
To: Brady, James C.
Subject: Variance
I am the owner of Unit 208B in Toscana South Condominium. I will not be in residence at the Condominium
on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by Golden City. Nevertheless,I
want to share my opinion with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE
HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the
Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning
district to 35 feet or dim stories. To approve this Application would,in effect,nullify those revisions and
substitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon information provide to me, I conclude
that there is no legal hardship present,and the Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad
decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Susan G. Selnick
Sent from my iPad
i
Pat Goldstein
200 E.65"Street,Apt 39N
New York,NY 10065
212-751-0086
E
i
October 31,2014
a
I
James C.Brady,Esq
Arnstein&Lehr LLP
200 East Las Olas Blvd,Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale,FL 33301-2299
Dear James:
I am the owner of unit 210 Toscana West Condominium. I will not be in residence at the
Condominium on the date of the Board.of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance
by Golden City. Nevertheless,I want to share my opinion with the board. I AM OPPOSED TO
THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to
revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three
stories. To approve this Application would,in effect,nullify those revisions and substitute the
non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon information provided to me,I
conclude that there is no legal hardship present,and the Applicant merely wants the Town to
save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Sincerely,
I
i
Pat Goldstein
E
4
i
I
1
I
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
Town of Highland Beach
3614 S.Ocean Blvd.
Highland Beach,FL 33487
Dear Madam,Sir:
I am the owner of Unit 302 in 3740 South Ocean Blvd.I will not be in residence at
the Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application
for variance by Golden City.
I want to share my opinion with the Board.
I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF
STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations
to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three stories.
To approve this Application would,in effect,nullify those revisions and substitute
the non-elected Board for the Town Commission.Based upon information provide
to me,I conclude that there is no legal hardship present,and the Applicant merely
wants the Town to save it from a bad decision.
THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Sincerely,
i
i
Boris Dushine
r
I�
Brady,James C.
From: betblC@aol.com
Serer Sunday, November 02,2014 4:33 PM
To: Brady,James C.
Subject Golden City Land Development Project
We are the owners of Unit 305 in Toscana West Condominium. We will not be in residence at the Condo-minium on the
date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by Golden City.
Nevertheless,we want to share our opinion with the Board: WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE
THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town
Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or
three stories. To approve this Application would, in effect, nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for
the Town Commission.
Based upon information provided to us,we conclude that there is no legal hardship present and the Applicant merely
wants the Town to save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Stanley and Betty Block
3720 South Ocean Blvd.
Apt. 305
Highland Beach, Florida 33487
1
Alfaro, Janice L.
From: Vincent Genovese<vingenovese@gmaii.com>
Sent; Sunday, November 09,2014 2:44 PM
To: Brady,James C.
Subject: Toscana South Condominium
James C.Brady,Esq.
ARNSTEIN&LEHR LLP ?
200 East Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale,Florida 33301-2299
Dear Mr. Brady,
I am the owner of Unit 305 in Toscana South Condominium. I will not be in residence at the Condominium on the
date of the Board of Adjustrnent Hearing on the application for variance by Golden City. Nevertheless,I want to share
my opinion with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF
STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise
the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three stories. To approve this
Application would,in effect,nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for the Town
Commission. Based upon information provided to me,I conclude that there is no legal hardship present,and the
Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED. I
Most certainly other residents In the building feel he same way and want to be sure the application Is denied
Thank you for your support and cooperation.
Vincent Genovese
Unit 305 Toscana South
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
1
Alfaro, Janice L
From: Linda Genovese<Iingenovese@gmaK.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 2:50 PM
To: Brady, James C. r
Subject: Board of Adjustment Hearing on Golden City variance application
To The Board of Adjustment:
I am the owner of Unit 305 in Toscana South Condominium. I will not be in residence at the Condominium on the date
of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by Golden City. Nevertheless,I want to share my
opinion with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to
limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 3S feet or three stories. To approve this Application would,in
effect,nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon information I
provide to me,l conclude that there is no legal hardship present,and the Applicant merely wants the Town to save it I
from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED. I am hopeful that the Board will honor the wishes of the
majority of property owners in Highland Beach and DENY this application.
i
Respecfully submitted,
i
Linda M.Genovese
Owner of:3740 S.Ocean Blvd. Unit 305, Highland Beach,FL33487
1 I
Pat Goldstein
200 E.65f Street,Apt 39N
New York,NY 10065
212-751-0086
October 31,2014
James C.Brady,Esq
A nstein&Lehr LLP
200 East Las 01as Blvd,Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale,FL 33301-2299
Dear James:
I am the owner of unit 308 Toscana North Condominium. I willl not be in residence at the
Condominium on the date of the Board.of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance
by Golden City. Nevertheless,I want to share my opinion with the board. I AM OPPOSED TO
THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to
revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in ibis zoning district to 35 feet or three
stories. To approve this Application would,in effect,nullify those revisions and substitute the
non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon information provided to me,I
conclude that there is no legal hardship present,and the Applicant merely wants the Town to
save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Sincerely,
G"�I
Pat Goldstein
i
Development in highland L xh Page 1 ot 1
Frage:Kau Av*%bli96w*cmi>
To: Kew
DwwA3prnotinidiphim, beeM
DsW-Thu.Nov 6,2D14 8:16 an
TO VNhM It May Corm,
I am the owrwer•of Unit 308a_in Towwo South Condominium.I have been living to Highland Beach singe 2004.
I will not be able to a'in nd the meeting on the dab of the Board of Adjust wd Hearing on the application for
vefrimme by(Golden City. Nsvartheless,I war to share my opinion with the Boss:
I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION ATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Conwdum oormMy saw fit to revise the
requisitions b I nit the hs#t of btd*W in this zoning district lo 35 feet or three sbries. To approve ttws
Awn would.in MK*,mitfy ton rs h ions and ukefto the non-elected Board for be Town
Commission. Based upon inlbnhhation provide to me,I oonck+de that two is no ispd hardship preasnt,and
the Applim t me*wo the Town to save K ftm a bad derision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE
DENIED.Tabs a teed torn Soca.ICs such a pie Burs to drive sio g AIA and not we avec de isbprnent.
R@7
Katsn Mirfub§r
Sent ftm rry.. ad I
f
I
f
t
I
I
I
https://mail.aol.com/38844-111/aol-6/+�ustmaiL4'ri essage.aspx 1116/2014
November 6,2014
Jams Q Brady,Esq.
ARNSTBN&LEHR LLP
200 East Las Ofas BwWmd
Suite 1000
Port fie, FWida 33301-2299
To whoa,tt May Conoern:
I am the owner of Unit 402 in Toscana South Condominium. I recently
purchased my Emit in September 2013, closing in March 2014. At the time
of purchase, I was advised of the current regulations to limit the height of
buildings in the zone directly in front of my windows to the south. If t even
thought there was a dice of revising these regulations, it certainly would
have affected my decision of purchase. l am eidrerrmly upset about the
prospect of this dwW. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend on the
date of the Board of AQustrnent Head on the application for variance by
Golden City due to work cvmrnitments. Nevertheless, i want to share my
opinion with the Board: t AM STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE
APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES
OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT_ Several years ago, the Town
Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the height of
buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three stories. To approve this
Application would, in effect, nullify those revisions and substitute the non-
elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon information
provided to me. I conclude that there is no legal hardship present, and the
Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad derision. THE
APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Thant you for your consideration,
nnie Greissman, DPIV1
i
November 3, 2014
i
i
James C. Brady, Esq
Amstein&Lehr LLP
200 East Las Otas Blvd
Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale, Fl. 33301-2299
@amstein.com
RE: Golden City Land Development in Highland Beach, Florida
Dear Mr. Brady:
We are the owners of unit#403 in Toscana South Condominiums at 3740 South
Ocean Blvd in Highland Beach, Florida.
We will not be in residence at the condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing
on the application for variance by Golden City.
We would, however, like to share our opinion with the Board. WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE
APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PRO-
POSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to
revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or
3 stories. To approve this application would, in effect, nullify those revisions and sub-
stitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission.
Based upon information provided to us,we conclude that there is no legal hardship
present,and the Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad decision.
THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely yours,
Bonnie and Henry Pikkel
Pikkel Family Partnership
3740 South Ocean Blvd
Apt#403
Highland Beach, Florida 33487
bpikkel@roadrunner.com
Brady, James C.
From: Frank Lore<frankIore0046@hotmaiI.corn>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05,2014 1:44 PM
To: Brady, James C.
Cc: 'Frank Lore'
Subject: FW:Town Notice for Hearing on Land Development
Attachments: TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH PUBLIC HEARING.PDF
Dear Board
I am the owner of Unit 509 in Toscana South Condominium. I will not be in residence at the Condominium on the date of
the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by Golden City. Nevertheless, I want to share my opinion
with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago, the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the
regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three stories. To approve this Application
would, in effect nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon
information provide to me, I conclude that there is no legal hardship present and the Applicant merely wants the Town to
save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Frank LoRe Jr
3740 South Ocean Blvd.
Apt.509
Highland Beach,H.33487
Brady, James C.
From: Susan Appell<s.appell@sky.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05,2014 9:34 AM
To: Brady, James C.
Subject: Toscana
Dear Sir,
My husband and I are the owners of unit 510 in Toscana South block condominium. We are unlikely to be in residence
at the Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment hearing on the planning application by Golden City.
We would like to share our opinion with the board which is,we are opposed to the application to increase the height
and number of stories of the proposed development.
Several years ago the town commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this
zoning district to 35ft.or 3 stories. If you approve this application,it would in effect nullify those revisions, and
substitute the non-elected board for the town commission.
We are relatively new residents in Toscana which we bought in 2012 as a winter home for ourselves as we are UK
residents. At that time we looked at various properties and the main reason we chose the apartment in Toscana was
because we had unrestricted views both of the Intracoastal and the ocean. it was also important to us that our position
gave us no shadow on our terraces. We were assured that any planning application on the adjacent land would not
affect this,and if we had any inclination at that time that an amendment would be submitted to after the height of the
original permission,we would not have gone ahead with the purchase.
THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Susan and Paul Appell
Apartment 510
Toscana South
Tel:561908 2118
Or
U k:0044 7802 315015
Sent from my iPad
Brady, James C.
From: Jessica Gilbert<gilberQ@youghsd.net>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 10:28 AM
To: Brady, James C.
Subject: Toscana-Land Development hearing.
Attachments- Toscana.docx
Dear Mr. Brady,
I am unable to make the Land Development meeting that will directly affect my Unit,number 602,in Toscana. Please
review the attached letter requested and feel free to phone me for further comment at 412-720-2600.
Sincerely,
Chris Marcanello
I
Christopher Marcanello
3740 S. Ocean Blvd.
Unit 602
i
Highland Beach, FL 33487
(412)720-2600
To Whom It May Concern:
i
1 am the owner of Unit 602 in Toscana South Condominium. I will not be in residence at i
the Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for
variance by Golden City. Nevertheless, I want to share my opinion with the Board: I AM
OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES
OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
F
As a unit owner,whose property directly views the site,allowing the restriction to be
lifted would both aesthetically and financially affect the future value of my unit My
unit was purchased knowing that the restrictions in place would preserve the secluded
view and value of the property.
E
Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to
limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three stories. To approve
this Application would, in effect, nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elected
Board for the Town Commission. Based upon information provide to me,THE
PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS PURCHASED APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR AGO WITH
THE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE HEIGHT PROVISION. I conclude that there is no legal
hardship present,and the Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad
decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
1
Sincerely,
i
Christopher Marcanello I
I
I
1�
I
Current view from mV unit#602.
I�
Alfaro, Janice L.
From: Rubin<rgruber9999@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 7:17 PM
To: Brady, James C.
Subject: Proposed Golden City Land Development in Highland Beach
Dear Mr. Brady
I am the owner of Unit 607 in Toscana South Condominium. I will not be in residence at the Condominium on the date of
the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by Golden City. Nevertheless, I want to share my opinion
with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the
regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three stories. To approve this Application
would, in effect, nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon
information provide to me, I conclude that there is no legal hardship present, and the Applicant merely wants the Town to
save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Thank you.
Rubin and Cindy Gruber
i
i
r
i
}
i
i
1 j
Brady, James C.
From: Robin Lederman <rocknrobin260gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05,2014 2:01 PM
To: Brady,James C.
Subject: Letter regarding the Golden City project from a Toscana South resident
Dear Mr.Brady;
We are the owners of Unit 609 in Toscana South Condominium and live here all year round. Although we will
be present on November 19,2014,the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance
by Golden City,we wish to share our opinion with the Board. WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION
TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED
DEVELOP NT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit
the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three stories. To approve this Application would, in
effect,nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission Based upon the
information provided to in,I conclude that there is no legal hardship present,and the Applicant merely wants
the Town to save it from a bad decision.THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Robin and Joel Lederman
Unit 609 South
Affaro, Janice L.
From: Stewart Perlow DMD<decosahotma1.com>
Sent: Monday, October 27,201412:02 PM
To: bbrown&i.hghland-beachAus; Brady, James C.;Adam Grandis
Subject: Golden City Land Development Variance Nov 19,2014 Hearing
I am the owner of Unit 710 in Toscana West Condominium. I am a full-
time resident at the Condominium and on the date of the Board of
Adjustment Hearing will be attending the application for variance by
Golden City. Nevertheless, I want to share my opinion with the Board: I
AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT
AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
Several years ago, the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the
regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet
or three stories. To approve this Application would, in effect, nullify
those revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for the Town
Commission. Based upon information provide to me, I conclude that there
is no legal hardship present, and the Applicant merely wants the Town to
save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE
DENIED.
Stewart Perlow DMD
Owner Toscana West 710
Highland Beach,FL 33487
561 276 3345 I
561 542 6964
i
i
i
1 i
11/05/14
To whom it may concern,
I am the owner of Unit 710 in Toscana South Condominium. I will not be in residence at the
Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by Golden
City. Nevertheless,I want to share my opinion with the Board:
I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF
STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly
saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this ming district to 35 feet or three
stories.
Based upon information provide to me,I conclude that there is no legal hardship present. THE
APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
The applicant's request for a zoning variance raises a few questions:
• Were the current zoning regulations in effect when the property was purchased?
• Can the landowner not make a reasonable use of the land and stay in compliance with the existing
zoning regulations?
• Can the landowner prove,in a clear and convincing manner,that there is some"unusual or
unique"aspect of the property that makes it difficult to carry on a reasonable we of the
arouerty ander the existing zoning regdadon&
• Does not building a structure on the property,while remaining in compliance with the existing
height restrictions,constitute a reasonable use of the land?
• Is it not the responsibility of the Board of Appeals to assure that any variance granted is the
minimum necessary to allow a reasonable use of the property?
• Is it so difficult in this case to comply with the existing regulations,that the landowner should be
excused from compliance?
• Is it possible that a lesser variance than requested would be adequate to address the applicant's
request?
• When considering whether to approve or deny the applicant's request,should the board consider
the impact on(and possible destruction of)ecologically sensitive mangrove wetland area,and the
negative effect of increased traffic?
My understanding of"hardship"is that it does not relate to the personal needs,desires,or profit motives
of the landowner,but rather to the quality of the property itself. Admittedly,The 7.35 acre parcel has
"limited buildability." That however, is not due to zoning restrictions;Nor should it be remedied by a
zoning variance. "Limited buildability"is due to the existence of sensitive mangrove wetlands on the
property(that existed long before the property was purchased by the applicant). The buildable portion of
the property has not changed.When a property is purchased which includes wetlands and the landowner
applies for a variance,the board should not allow for the development of hi-rise buildings based on the
landowner's desire for an increased per-acre density due to"limited buildability." If the board were to
approve the request,then Highland Beach would suffer the loss of sensitive wetlands(of which there is a
shortage,not a surplus).
Further,it is my opinion,and the opinion of many Highland Beach neighbors,that financial
considerations should not be sufficient reason for the board to approve a variance. We are all
aware that a 200+foot tall condominium becomes more financially lucrative than a 35 foot tall dwelling.
It is certainly more financially beneficial to the applicant to have his request for a variance approved.
While I respect the business acumen of the applicant,I do not believe desire for financial gain should
outweigh our zoning regulations(and the spirit in which they were drawn up by the Town Commission).
In addition,as a Highland Beach resident,I believe we should all be concerned that our beautiful island
residence should not become"over-developed"as many barrier islands have become in South Florida.It
is too late to save those other barrier islands that have suffered from over-development...It is not too late
for Highland Beach! That decision rests with you,the Board.
I respectfully request that prior to granting any variances now,or into the future,that the board keep in
mind the irreversible negative long term effect of over-development. Please be mindful of setting a
precedent for future applicants if the applicant's request were to be approved.The probability would be
high of new landowners coming before the board requesting zoning variances for higher density housing
(more hi-rise housing).
I
When the time comes to approve or deny the applicant's request,I have confidence that the board will
keep the best interests of Highland Beach as our number one priority. I,for one,love our little island
paradise.Thank you.
Respectfully,
Sandra Barreneche
November 10 2014
I
Mr.James C.Brady,Esq.
Arnstein&Lehr,LLP
200 East Las Olas Blvd.
Fort Lauderdale,Fl.33301
RE:Golden City Condominium Development
Dear Mr.Brady:
I am the owner of Unit 803 in the South Building of Toscana. I want to share an
opinion with the Board regarding the above subject development
I am in the domestic part of the air conditioning industry(installation of through-
the-wall units in condominiums in New York City)for over forty years. I have also
sub-contracted commercial work for the installation of exterior chillers installed on
the rooftop of buildings.
The noise level is a concern for all exterior chillers generated by equipment(fan&
air intakes/exhausts,compressors,etc.). This will disturb building neighbors
adjacent to the above subject development The acoustical conditions will affect
sleeping,conversations(whether on balconies or indoor) use of telephones,
enjoyment of television,hearing loss,etc. Also,the application of a new chiller is
very important
Even if the above subject building is of the same height of the adjacent neighboring
building,it is dependent on the distance between buildings and the noise level. If
the building is lower than the adjacent neighboring building,the noise level will be
intolerable. The noise level is also dependent on weather conditions,especially a
southeast wind.
For this reason,I am very opposed to the development of the above subject building.
I recommend that the Board hire a commercial expert to ascertain the above
statements. I also,recommend that the Board inquire about the noise
ordinance/guidelines for outdoor chillers in Palm Beach County/Highland Beach.
Sincerely,
Aezrlkto�t
Georgia Batsidis
Howard Essner, M.D.
86 Fos Hedge Road
.%delle River„Nd 07458 i
T 2014M7378
F 2014211.Ml
C 9144149.3335
1
1c1*c10ucl.9.ne �
J
BYE AIL icbrady0amstein.com i
i
November 5, 201 4
Dear Mr. Brady,
I am the owner of Unit 806 In Toscana South Condominium. I will not be in
residence at the Condominium on the date of the Board of Agent
Hearing on the application for variance by Golden City. Nevertheless, I
want to share my opinion with the Board:
I AM STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE
HEIGHTAND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT:
Several years ago, the Town Commission correctly saw M to revise the
regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or
three stories. To approve this Application would, in effect, nullify those
revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission.
Based upon information provide to me, I conclude that there is no legal
hardship present, and the Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from
a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Thank you for your kind cooperation.
Respectfully,
Howard Essner, MD
Susan Essner
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
Town of Highland Beach
3614 S. Ocean Blvd.
Highland Beach, FL 33487
Dear Madam,Sir
I am the owner of Unit 807 in 3740 South Ocean Blvd. I will not be in residence at
the Condominium on
the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by
Golden City.
I want to share my opinion with the Board.
I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND
NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
Several years ago, the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the
regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three
stories.
To approve this Application would, in effect, nullify those revisions and substitute
the non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon information
provide to me, I conclude that there Is no legal hardship present, and the
Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad decision.
i
THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED. �
i
i
Sincerely
i
Gaby A.Ajram
I
I
i
i
Board of Adjustment
Highland Beach, Florida:
am the owner of Unit 902 in Toscana South Condominium. I may not be
in residence at the Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment
Hearing on the application for variance by Golden City. Nevertheless, I
want to share my opinion with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO THE
APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF
STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
Several years ago, the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the
regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or
three stories. To approve this Application would, in effect, nullify those
revisions and substitute the non-eWed Board for the Town
Commission. Based upon information provided to me, I conclude that
there is no legal hardship present to support this application, and the
Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad business decision.
THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Respectfully,
James K. Goodwin
Unit 902, Toscana South
FREDRIC J. LAFFIE
2095 Legion Street
Bellmore,New York 11710
i
I
October 30,2014
James. C Brady,Esquire
Arnstein& Lehr LLP
200 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale,Florida 33301-2299
Dear Mr.Brady:
I am the owner of Unit 903 in Toscana South Condominium. I will not be in residence at the
Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by
Golden City. Nevertheless,I want to share my opinion with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO
THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to
revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three
stories. To approve this Application would,in effect,nullify those revisions and substitute the
non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon information provide to me, I
conclude that there is no legal hardship present, and the Applicant merely wants the Town to
save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Sincerely,
Fredric J. Laffie
1031-2014
James Brady Esq
Amstein & Lehr LLP
200 Las Olas Blvd
Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale FL 33301
Dear Attorney Brady.,
I am the owner of Unit#904 Toscana North Condominium. I will not be in
residence at the Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment
Hearing on the application for variance by Golden City. Nevertheless I
would like to share my opinion with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO THE
APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES
OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago, the Town
Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the height of
buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three stories. To approve this
Application would, in effect, nullify those revisions and substitute the non-
elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon information provided
to me, I conclude there is no legal hardship present, and the Applicant
merely wants the Town to save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION
SHOULD BE DENIED.
Sincerely,
Patricia S. Toole
10/39/'2014 21:17 61247 :0 IVERSEN PAGE 01
i
i
i
\®'� 3
YVYt , ,
i am the tiwl'ler of tit 906 T0eGeVrta 1Aleset ixortdOrniriiiiiri. I wiii rO be in I 4M
c of Wbminl n Ori the dam of the board of a*x hearittig on the for
variance by goldetl
Nelh+�artl'MlyteW i wart Do dwe my q* cti with thei board: I AM TO THE
APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND N UNSER OF STORIES OF THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
Several years ago,the town commlWon correctly saw M th rem the me to
ate height ofbail* in thft z+arting IoWfeetorttweemic iis Tb appr=ove
this XV&m m would,in ailleck nuWy►thous rerisiC w and aaaubs9 Aft the!tion 919 clod
board for the lown commmsion.
Based upon information provided to me, I aondude that there is no hardship
prea r t, and the applWant me*ww tffi the town to save it from a bed*ask n. THE
APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
I appr+eciat yaw atbentioi to this matter,
Sirxteii>tiy,
Brendan Iversen
Unit owner 906 lbecana Wism
10-27-14;12:09PM; # 2/ 2
October 27,2014
Jam"C. Brady,Esq.
ARNSTEIN&LEHR LLP
200 East Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-2299
Dear lir.Brady:
I am the owner of Unit 9th In Toscana South Condominium. I will be out of the country
on November 19,2014,the date scheduled for the Board of Adjustment Hearing
regar*V the application for varlance by Camden City.
Nevertheless,I want to share my opinion with the Board: I ANI OPPOSED TO THE
APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
Several yws ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to
limit the height of buildings In this Ming district to 35 feet or three stories. To approve
this Apptic edon would,In effect, nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elected
Board for 0*Town Con rrilssion. Based upon ftffnation provide to me, i conclude
that there Is no legal hardship present, and the Applicant merely wants the Town tD
save it from a bad decision.
THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
I respectfully request you enter my opinion in this matter.
i
CARMEN CA.STILLi7
3740 South Ocean Boulevard
Apt W9
Highland Beach,Florida 33487
Tel: 917-295-254
I
i
f
f
i
Charles and Judith Laverty copy
10 Cedar Road
Belmont, ,A4A 02478
October 27, 2014
i
Town Clerk of Highland Beach Florida
3614 S. Ocean Blvd.
Highland Beach,FL 33487
Dear Ms. Brown:
I am the owner of Unit 1001 in Toscana West Condominium. I will not be in residence at the
Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance
by Golden City. Nevertheless, I want to share my opinion with the Board: I AM OPPOSED
TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago, the Town Commission correctly saw fit to
revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three
stories. To approve this Application would,in effect, nullify those revisions and substitute the
non-elected Board for the-Town Commission. Based upon information provide to me, I
conclude that there is no legal hardship present, and the Applicant merely wants the Town to
save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Thank you,
Char . Lav r.
Judith Laver
Copy: James C.Brady,Esq.
ARNSTEIN &LEHR LLP
200 East Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-2299
CRL,Jr:nh
Alfaro, Janice L.
From: robert troyer<rmtroyer@yahoo.c om>
Sent: Friday, October 31,201412:13 PM
To: Brady,James C.
Subject variance by Golden City
Attachments: To Whom h May Concem.docx
I am the owner of Unit 1003 @ Toscana North Condominium. I will not be able to attend the Board of
Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by Golden City. I would like to express my total
opposition to the application to increase the height and number of stories of the proposed
development. In fact ,1 and other owners will plan to sell our units if this variance is granted. As a
result property values and tax receipts will drop accordingly.The Town Commission correctly revised
the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three stories several
years ago. These revisions should not be nullified by the non elected Board for the Town
Commission. The strongly feel that the application should be denied. Sincerely, Robert M. Troyer
M.D.
E
3
7
i
I
i
i
I
1 1
Article 6(A)Trust U/A Molly Hirshfield
Markham B.Goldstone,Trustee
82 Cabot Street
Newton,Ma 02458
617.780.7190 (Cell)
Monday,November 03,2014
RE:Golden City Development
James C.Brady,Esq.
Amstein&Lehr LLP
200 East Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale,Honda 33301-2299
Dear Mr.Brady,
I am a Trustee of Unit 1005 in the West Condominium.I will not be in residence at the Condominium on
the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by Golden City.
Nevertheless I want to share my opinion with the Board:I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO
INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.Several years ago,
the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the height of the buildings in the
zoning district to 35 feet or three stories.To approve this Application would,in effect,nullify those
revisions and substitute the non-elected Board of Town Commission.Based upon information provided
to me,I conclude that there is no legal hardship present,and the Applicant merely wants the Town to
save it from a bad decision.THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Sincerely,
jvdZ7
Ma/ham B. stone
Brady, James C.
From: CBPLOTNICK@aol.com
Sent Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:49 AM
To: Brady, James C.
Subject: Toscana
To Whom it May Concern,
I am the owner of Unit 1006 in Toscana South Condominium. I recently bought this apartment. I will not be in residence at
the Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by Golden
City. Nevertheless, I want to share my opinion with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE
THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town
Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or
three stories. To approve this Application would, in effect, nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for
the Town Commission. Based upon information provide to me, I conclude that there is no legal hardship present, and the
Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
As I stated I recently bought this apartment. It was nice that Toscana's buildings were not enclosed on the sides. This
building would make it tightly locked in. It is not fair.This building should not be allowed to build higher than the present
regulations allow.
Sincerely,
Charlotte Plotnick
Unit 1006 Toscana South
i
10/28/2014 08:17 FAX 8093452 LEVINE.STALLER @001
4 Harvard Lane
Linwood, NJ 08221
i
October 27, 2014
t
Via Fa=(954)713-7718
Board of AdjLstment and Appeals
c/o Town Clerk of Highland Beach
Highland Beach Town Hall
3614 S. Ocetrn Boulevard
Highland Bel ch, FL 33487
Re: Opposition To Variance AppBcation—Golden City Land
Development
Bear Board Members:
We are the owners of Unit 1009 in Toscana North Condominium. We
have owned our unit since 2005 and, one day, Intend to make it our permanent
residence. We will not be in residence on the date of the Board of Adjustment
Hearing on the application for variance by Golden City. Nevertheless,we want to
share our opinion with the Board.
We are gppgggd to the application to increase the height and number of
stories of the proposed development
Several years ago, the Town Commission revised the regulations to limit
the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three stories. To
approve this Application would, in effect, nullify those revisions and substitute the
non-elected Hoard for the Town Commission.
Basec upon information provided to us,we conclude that then: is no legal
hardship pre:;ent. The variance request appears solely attributable to actions of
the Applicant. The Application should be denied.
Very truly yours +
s
i
i
Carol L. Sklar Arthur E. Sklar
f
cc: James C. Brady, Esq. (via e-mail:jcbrady@amstsin.com)
i
I
I
Affaro, Janice L.
From: james@hatzipetros-corn
Sent* Friday, November 07,2014 2:13 PM
To: Brady,James C.
Subject. Proposed land development
James Hatzipetros
7500 Fourth Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11209
718 921-1800
jamestWhatzipetros.com
November 7th, 2014
Re:Proposed land Development
To the Town of Highland Beach:
I am the owner of Unit 1081 in Toscana South Condominium. I will not be in residence at the
Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by Golden
City. Nevertheless, I wanted to share my opinion with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO
INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years age,
the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this
zoning district to 35 feet or three stories. To approve this Application would, in effect, nullify those
revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based on the information
provided to me, I conclude there Is no legal hardship present, and the Applicant merely wants the Town to
save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Respectfully submitted,
James Hatzipetros
i
Pain nerapy
ASSOCIATES
Y
am 0*4tp for bd tg pain
�m IV l 17 M cwff-4l -
7
Gummy L Dadvlm,MD,FACR I am the owner of Unit 1101 in Toscana West Condominium. I win not be in
MEDICAL DIRECTOR
Board-Certified:American
residence at the Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing
i Board of Rheumatology, on the application for variance by Golden City. Never the less,I grant to share
I American Board of Internal my opinion with the Board:I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE
Medicine,American Academy THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
of Pain Management
Fellow:American College of Several years ago, the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the
I Rheumatology regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or
MD:University of Illinois three stories. To approve this Application wouid in effect,nuiCfy,those revision
Memberships International and substitute non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon
{ Association for the Study of information provide to me, I conclude that there is no legal hardship present,
Pain,American Academy of and the Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad decision.
Pain Management,American
} College of Physicians, THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
American College of
Rheumatology,American
Medical Association,Chicago
Medical Society,Chicago
Rheumatism Society
Author,Lecturer&Researcher
i
s
AM you need in one bcatiow
• Lab&blood testing
• Ultrasound&X-rays
•Ambulatory surgery suite
• Fluoroscopic guidance
• EMG testing
• Physical therapy
• Massage therapy
•Trigger point therapy
• Injection therapies
• Myofascial release
•Chiropractic manipulation
•Acupuncture
•Stretching techniques
• Splinting&orthotics
• Medication therapy
455 SOUTH ROSELLE ROAD
SUITE 104
SCHAUMBURG,IL 60193
233 EAST ERIE
SUITE 702
CHICAGO,IL 60611
TEL:847-352-5511
FAX:847-352-5585
WWW.PAINHELP.COM
t
TRMIC
pp�� }}��®���/nn.yam�y+��♦ �}�}� *C��±p�����) ,``�` +� i.i.
Ol .►JtlRA!7 AAAJI'fYl!I1�w sW 1 f Ci t 7.!�[:CiJ17AtY6 ITtA y F -(��091} i 6 0W-(411444."
TRANSMMf L
TQ; JWW C.Brady,Esq.
COMPANY: ARNSTEIN&UM LLP
DATR: Od*bar 29,2014
FAX NO: 954.713.7718
#PACES: 2 (Itfcdudi ng this pap)
f
FROM Amold B.Tofuks,Unit 1102
MESSAGE: Tooma South
Yall pa 8es are not receives,please call 781-444-8812.
4
The+deeameob bw=ftbd by tbis baimik my eoateix confidenU and F*Uepd infermedoa. This whrmAtioa
is Wended for the ase of dw addreem pored on this tmaasmitW sheet. Xf yom are not the addressee,say d winuM
phatoeopyM&dkMbw*u or an of its conteaft is prohibbei. Xf you iove received this bcsbdk is error,plan eat
in ironed IaNy at 7ii1.4444IK2(edlect)so that we can ani mao to reh irve the orifi A
i
S'd 009'ON 071 00 18 SklI-dOi t WdEO:T tPI OZ'62*IX
Brady, James C.
From: Bonnie Perlin<Bonniep1448@aol.com>
Seryl» Thursday, November 06,201410:52 AM
To: Brady,James C.
i
Subject Land Development Project i
Dear Mr. Brady,I am the owner of unit 1103 in Toscana South. I will not be available for the hearing concerning the
Board of Adjustment variance by Golden City. I want to share my opinion with the board. I am opposed to the
application to increase the height and number of stories of the proposed development.The Town Commission correctly
saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to three stories or 35 feet.To
approve this application would nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission. I
Because of the information which has been provided to me,I can conclude that there is absolutely no legal hardship
invohred.This application should definitely be denied.The Town Commission's decision,should be adhered to and not
disregarded. Thank you, Bonnie Perlin i
i
f
i
i
i
i
I
f
I
I
I
i
E
i
f
j
I
i
I
L
1 �
i
I
November 3, 2014
James C. Brady, Esq
Amstein&Lehr LLP
200 East Las Olas Blvd
Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale, Fl. 33301-2299
jcbmdygamstein.com
RE: Golden City Land Development in Highland Beach, Florida
Dear Mr. Brady:
We are the owners of unit#1105 in Toscana South Condominiums at 3740 South
Ocean Blvd in Highland Beach, Florida.
We will not be in residence at the condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing
on the application for variance by Golden City.
We would, however, like to share our opinion with the Board. WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE
APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PRO-
POSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to
revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or
3 stories. To approve this application would, in effect, nullify those revisions and sub-
stitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission.
Based upon information provided to us, we conclude that there is no legal hardship
present, and the Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad decision.
THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely yours,
Bonnie and Henry Pikkel
3740 South Ocean Blvd
Apt#1105
Highland Beach, Florida 33487
bpikkel @ roadrunne r.com
Alfaro, Janice L.
From: Marvin Kolsky<marvin@speedweNdesign.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 4:08 PM
To: Brady, James C.
Subject: TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH PUBLIC HEARING
MARVIN A. KOLSKY
BARBARA A.KOLSKY
9 TOWER LANE
MORRISTOWN,N.J.07960
TOSCANA SOUTH UNIT 1106
3740 S.OCEAN BLVD.
HIGHLAND BEACH,FLORIDA 33487
561-274-8880
PHONE:201-400-3940
973-538-0707-FAX
E-MAIL-MARVIN(a)SPEEDWELLDESIGN.COM
TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.:
I AM THE OWNER OF UNIT 1106 IN TOSCANA SOUTH CONDOMINIUM. I WILL NOT BE IN
RESIDENCE AT THE CONDOMINIUM ON THE DATE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING ON
THE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE BY GOLDEN CITY. NEVERTHE LESS,I WANT TO SHARE MY
OPINION WITH THE BOARD: I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT
AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town
Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to
35 feet or three stories. To approve this application would in effect,nullify those revisions and substitute the
non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon information provided to me,I conclude that there is
no legal hardship present,and the Applicant merely wants the town to save it from a bad decision.
THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Marvin Kolsky
I
I
i
i
i'
i
I
i
i II
"Brady, James C.
From: Susan<susanselnick@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05,2014 921 AM
To: Brady,James C.
Subject Hearing on variance-deny application
We are the owners of Unit 1110 in Toscana West Condominium. We will not be in residence at the
Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by Golden
City. Nevertheless, I want to share my opinion with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO
INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to
limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three stories. To approve this Application
would, in effect,nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based
upon information provide to me,I conclude that there is no legal hardship present,and the Applicant merely
wants the Town to save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
As 30 year residents of this town,we are particularly interested in protecting the character of this area and
preserving its natural assets.
Arthur and Ruth SeInick
Sent from my Wad
Brady, James C.
From: Joe Neufeld<jneufeld@blueberrytree.ca>
Sent Tuesday, November 04, 2014 9:02 AM
To: Brady,James C.
Cc: Angie Holcman
Subject land Development Update 8
i
Dear Mr Brady, Esq
I am the owner of Unit 1203 in Toscana South Condominium. I will not be in residence at the
Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by
Golden City. Nevertheless, I want to share my opinion with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO THE
APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT.
Several years ago, the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the height
of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three stories. To approve this Application would, in
effect, nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based
upon information provide to me, 1.conclude that there is no legal hardship present, and the Applicant
merely wants the Town to save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Yours truly,
Joseph Neufeld
J & H Realties Inc
1485 Sherbrooke Street West, #2A
Montreal, Que H3G OA3
Canada
Email: ineufeld _bluebeMdree.ca i
I
i
i
I
1 II
I,Jeff Kim am the owner of Unit 1204 in Toscana West Condominium. I will not be in
residence at the Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the
application for variance by Golden City. Nevertheless,I want to share my opinion with the
Board: I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND
NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the
Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in
this zoning district to 35 feet or three stories. To approve this Application would,in effect,
nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based
upon information provide to me,I conclude that there is no legal hardship present,and the
Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION
SHOULD BE DENIED.
G
IA.tJ
r _
14
co
r ,
C,; `3 e)l 7f
3
i
i
Steven M Terk
3740 S Ocean Blvd#1210
Highland Beach,FL 33487
November 9,2014
Town Clerk
Highland Beach Town Hal
3614 S Ocean Blvd
Highland Beach,FL 33487
Re:Board of Adjustment&Appeals Public Hearing November 19'"
Golden City Land Development Request
I am the owner of Unit 1210 in Toscana South Condominium. I am a permanent resident I want to share
my opinion with the Hoard I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND
NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission
correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet
or three stories. To approve this Application would,in effect,nullify those revisions and substitute the
non-elec Board for the Town Commission. Based upon information provided to me,I conclude that
there is no legal hardship present,and the Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad
decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
V truly
Mzlk-
Steven M Terk
Cc:James C Brady,Fsq,200 East Las Olas Boulevard;Suite 1000;Ft Lauderdale Fl,33301-
2299
I
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
{
i
Brady, James C.
From: Frank Raccuglia Sr. <franksr@bdwcorp.com>
Sent Saturday, November 03,2014 8.46 AM
To: Brady,James C.
cc Jean Raccuglia
Subject: Toscana Golden City Land Developement
We are the owners of unit 1401 in Toscana West Condominium we will not be in residence At the Condominium the
date of the Board Adjustment hearing on the application for variance by Golden City.Nevertheless I want to share my
opinion with the Board.l am Opposed To The ApplicationTo Increase The HeightAnd NumberOf StoriesOf The
ProposedDevelopment.
Several years ago,the Town Commision correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the Height of buildings in this
zoning dWrict to 35 feet or three stories.To approve this Application would ineffect nullify those revisions and substitute
the non-elected Board for the Town Commision Based upon information provide to me,l conclude that there is no legal
hardship present,and the Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad decision.
The Application Should Be Denied.
Frank Raccuglia
Jean Raccuglia
franksi-Obdwcorp.com
carlena39@aol.com
718-745-7920 business
917-627-4200
Sent from my!Pad
1
Alfaro, Janice L.
From: Ben and Mayra Stem<benandmayrastem@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11,2014 6:19 PM
To: Brady,James C.
Subject: Toscana
Hello Mr.James C. Brady,
We are the owners of Unit 1405 in Toscana North-Condominium. We want to share our opinion with the
Board: WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the
regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three stories. To approve this
Application would,in effect, nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for the Town
Commission. Based upon information provide to us,we conclude that there is no legal hardship present,and
the Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Thanks kindly,
Mayra&Ben Stern
1405 Toscana North
561-908-2474
BenAndMayraStern@hotmail.com
i
i
i
li
I
1
I
i
r
i
i
i
I
I
I
i
1 I
I
i
To Whom It May Concern:
1 am the owner of Unit 1410 in Toscana West Condominium. I will not be in
residence at the Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing
on the application for variance by Golden City. Nevertheless, I want to share my
opinion with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE j
THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED i
DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago, the Town Commission saw fit to revise the
regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three
stories. To approve this Application would, in effect, nullify those revisions and
substitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon
information provided to me, I conclude that there is no legal hardship present, j
and the Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad decision. THE
APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
i
i
I
I
I
i
f
i
I
To Whom It May Concern:
We are the owners of Unit 1410 in Toscana West Condominksm We will not be
in residence at the Condominium on the dale of the Board of Ac*nbmt Hmft
on the applical on for variance by Golden City. Nevertheless,we want W share
our opinion wkh the Board:WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO
INCREASE THE HEK3iT AND NUMir M OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT Several years ago,the Town Commission saw fft to mvise the
regulations is lind Me height of buidings in this zoning disbrict to 35 feet or three
skwm& To approve this Application wadd, In effect, nulffy those revWons and
substiule the non-eiscle#hoard for ffie Town Commission. Based upon
pian proNided lo us,we conclude that there is no legal hardship pert,
and the Applicant merely wants the Town to save K from a bad decision.THE
APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
VeMna Buzic 111612th l4
i
Yefam Buzic 0
,
t
i
i
iI
f
I
i
f
i
1
i
i
1
i
I
i
10/24/14 02:18PH HP L" ..JET FAX 5612764469 p.02
RICHARD J. ROSENSTOCK
3740 SOUTH OCEAN BLVD.
APT.1503
HIGHLAND BEACH, FL 33487
Jaynes C Brady, Esq
Arnstein & Lehr LLP
Gentleman,
I am the owner of Unit 1503 in Toscana North
Condominium. I will not be able to be present at the Board
of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by
Golden City. Nevertheless, I want to share my opinion with
the Board. I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO
INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES
OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years
ago the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the
regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning
district to 35 feet or three stories. To approve this
application would, in effect, nullify those revisions and
substitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission.
Based upon information provided to me, I conclude that
there is no legal hardship present and the Applicant merely
wants the Town to save it from a bad decision. THE
APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Very truly yours,
;
Richard osenstock
i
;
To Whom It May Concern:
I am the owner of Unit 1506 in Toscana South Condominium. I will not be in
residence at the Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing
on the application for variance by Golden City. Nevertheless, I want to share my
opinion with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE
THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago, the Town Commission saw fit to revise the
regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three
stories. To approve this Application would, in effect, nullify those revisions and
substitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon
information provided to me, I conclude that there is no legal hardship present,
and the Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad decision. THE
APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
To Whorn It Nay Concern
-
We are the owners of Unit 1506 in Toscana South Cordornb*m.We vA not be
in residence at the Condoff**m on to dale of the Board of nmt Hearing
on the application for variance by Golden City. Ne intheiess,we want to share
our opinion with the Board:WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO
INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Tann Cornrrmission saw It to revise the
regulations to Pmk the height of burkings in fits Toning Is I ict to 35 feet or twee
stories. To approve this Appication would,in effect, and fy those mons and
she the non-elected Board for to Town Commission. Bayed upon '
Irdbrmartion provided to us,we conclude teem two is no legal Immrdship per,
and the Applicant me*wants the Town to sante it from a bad decision.THE '
APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
/
velvina Buzik
Yefm BuzicJ/
461020/�
i
i
F
I
t
{
i
i
I
Michael Axelrod
400 Post Avenue Suite 303
Westbury, New York 11560
516-997-2442
October 27,2014
James C. Brady, Esq.
Arnstein&Lehr,LLP
200 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-2299
Dear Mr. Brady:
I am the owner of Unit 1510 in Toscana South Condominium. I will not be in residence at the
Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by
Golden City. Nevertheless, I want to share my opinion with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO
THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to
revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or j
three stories. To approve this Application would,in effect,nullify those revisions and
substitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon information
provide to me,I conclude that there is no legal hardship present,and the Applicant merely
wants the Town to save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE
D IED.
I
i
in erely,
i
i
t
i
i
I
Mich 1 e d
i
i
I
her il bo/ zz
&212:10 n7 �7u GlL Z oa 61
lvarl�,)nee A(i &1dzn d, _ iaZ7 i.
Ne n 4r
7Z/I/)-) QZ22 MI
hey n
eJ
5 or �vrr T
45 w rd frZ -A& TQW22 (4/7 ,
own
t and lje,&d
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
I
WALTHEUM
LAW
i ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Roy A.Walther,ill 230 S.Bemiston Ave.
Myron S.Zwbelman Suite 500
Of Counsel Clayton,Missouri 63105
(314)725-9595
Evan D.Buxner',LLC Toll Free:(866)986-7078
'Lioensed m Miwwd and ali kis Fax:(888)851-4940
i
i November 3,2014
Mr. James C.Brady
Arnstein&Lehr,LLP
200 East Las Olas Blvd.
Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale,FL 33301-2299
RE: Golden City Development
Dear Mr.Brady:
Enclosed please find letter which I ask that you present at the hearing on November 19,
2014 at the Highland Beach hearing.
Thank you.
Very y Yours,
yron Lbelmari.
MSZ:dmg
Enclosures
Myron & Bonnie Zwibelman
3740 So. Ocean Blvd., #1602
Highland Beach, FL 33487
November 1,2014
To Whom It May Concern:
I am the owner of unit 1602 in Toscana South Condominium. I will not be in Florida on
the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by Golden City.
Nevertheless, I want to share my opinion with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO THE
APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly revised the
regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or 3 stories. To
approve this application would,in effect,nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elected
Board for the Town Commission. Based upon information provide to me, I conclude that there
is no legal hardship present,and the Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad
decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Ve truly yours,
Myr S. wibelman
i
Alfam, Janice L
From: Harry Pila<pHabroch@aaol.com>
Sent Monday, October 27,2014 1:27 PM
To: Brady, James C.
Subject: Golden City Land Development/Toscana West Unit 1605
Dear Mr.Brady,
We will be unable to attend the November 11,2014 meeting of the Toscana Homeowner association,nor the hearing on
November 19 2014 and wanted to go on record as follows:
1 am the owner of Unit 1605 in Toscana West Condominium.I am OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE
HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings In this
zoning district to 35 feet or 3 stories.To approve this application would,in effect,nullify those revisions and substitute
the non-elected Board for the Town Commission.Based upon information provided to me,I conclude that there is no
legal hardship present,and the applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad decision.THE APPLICATION
SHOULD BE DENIED.
Thank you.
Regards,
Harry D Piia
1
Alfaro, Janice L
From: Leslie Siegel<lgs� yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 6:57 PM
To: Brady, James C.
Subject: Board of Agent Land Development Hearing
To mom It Myr Corhmm
My husband,Joe Casbtloo and I are tie oarhers d urhit iGM n Tosooha South omxkn nkm.tNo vA not be n Floida on to dab oft»flood of A*whoht 2 bw2 on to app6caten for veriohee
by Gaklan City.NewwOubsa,w are so upset by to praposd dw w vwrd b shoo our oI I I wO h the Bond WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND
NUMBER OF STORES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Several years apo to Ton C ' amc ly sawfit b revise to regulal orbs b Md the hegld of buNW into mnihp dkd W to
95 fast or three dwi@L To appove On appkd=would edify these revislou and nbsMub to non ebged Board for the Tow Coaoiomm.Based upon irdarreatah provided to ue we eorekde that
trove is nobpd hodd preaer'aid to appgcok mardy wards the ban b saves it tan a bad bunneo dsddoh THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENEDItlIli3llltlll F
Leese Siepel and Joe Caewbw
i
i
i
i
i
f.
f
I
i
i
ll
I
I
I
fI
I
I
C
r
I
1
Brady, James C.
From: Scheinberg, Ronald <rscheinberg@ redderpric e.com>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 9:12 AM
To: Brady,James C.
Subject: Golden City- Highland Beach Project Waiver Appication
i
I
I
To Whom It May Concern:
I am the owner of Unit 1610 in Toscana North Condominium. I will not be in residence at the Condominium on
the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by Golden City. Nevertheless, I
want to share my opinion with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE
HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the
Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning
district to 35 feet or three stories. To approve this Application would,in effect,nullify those revisions and
substitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon information provide to me,I conclude
that there is no legal hardship present,and the Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad
investment decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Best wishes,
Ron
VEDDER PRICE*
Ronald ScWnberg
Amorney at Law
P +1(212)407 7730 1 F: +1(212)407 7799
M: +1(917)340-2051
rschdnbeM@mgdd=do.com
Assistant. Elsa Batista, +1(212)407 7753
1633 Broadway r
47th Floor
New York,New York 10019
Chicago I New York I Washington,DC
London I San Francisco I Los Angeles
wwwi edde mrice.mm
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain information that is privileged,confidential and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. If the reader of this e-mail message is not the intended recipient,or the employee or agent
responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,please
notify us immediately by telephone at(312)609-5038 and also indicate the sender's name. Thank you.
i
Vedder Price P.C. is affiliated with Vedder Price LLP,which operates in England and Wales and with Vedder
Price(CA),LLP which operates in California.
1
NOV-4-2014 08:24 F'ROM:OSHEROI 5614162501 19547137718 P.1/1
i
November 1,2014
i
Mr.James C.Brady,Esq.
Anutein A Lehr LLp
200 East Las Olas Blvd.,Suite 1000
Ft.Lauderdale,FL 33301-2299
Via Fax-954-713-7718
Dear Mr.Brady:
1 em the owner of Unit 1701 in Toscana North Condominium. I will not be In residence at the
condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the applicabon for variance by Golden
Cly. Nevertheless,I want to share my opinion with the board. I ANE OPPOSED TO THE APPUCAATM
TO INCREASE THE"EIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years
fto the Town Commission correctly saw flt to revise the regulations to fanit the height of building in this
zm*%district to 35 feet or three stories. To approve this Application would,in effect,nullify those
revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon the information
provided to me,I conclude that there is no legal hardship present,and the Applicant merely wants the
Town to save It from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Sincerely,
i
S kD. iwi w
3700 S.Ocean Blvd.#1701
Highland Beach, FL 33487
561-416-2511(Office)
GARY B. BETTMAN
150 Cortland Drive
Saddle River, NJ 07458
November 11, 2014
Town of Highland Beach
Board of Adjustment and Appeals
Highland Beach Town Hall
3614 South Ocean Boulevard
Highland Beach, FL 33487
Dear Members of the Board:
I am the owner of Unit 1703 in Toscana South Condominium. I will not be
in residence at the Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the
application for variance by Golden City. Nevertheless, I want to share my opinion with
the Board: I am opposed to the application to increase the height and number of stories
of the proposed development.
A two hundred foot tall building on two acres might make sense if this
were Manhattan or even Collins Avenue in North Miami Beach (which feels like you are
driving through a tunnel), but this is Highland Beach. Several years ago, the Town
Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in
this zoning district to 35 feet or three stories. The aesthetics, congestion and ambiance
of Highland Beach depend on enforcing the current zoning requirements. To approve
this application would, in effect, nullify those revisions. Based upon information
provided to me, I cannot imagine that there is any legal hardship present that has not
been self-inflicted by the developer/applicant. To grant the variance, in essence,would
mean that there are no zoning requirements in Highland Beach and it will be `open
season'for developers. I respectfully request that the Board deny the application.
4
Respectfully,
i
i
i
{
November 5,2014
i
James C.Brady,Esq. j
ARNSTEIN&LEHR LLP
200 East Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale,Florida 33301-2299
I
Dear Sirs .
Re:Application#37015—Request submitted by Golden City Highland Beach,LLC for a
variance request for property located at South Ocean Boulevard(24434740-001-0030)
Highland Batch,Florida
We are the owners of Unit 1705 in Toscana South Condominium. We will not be in residence at
the Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for
variance by Olden City. Nevertheless,we want to share our opinions with the Board: WE
ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF
STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission
correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to
35 feet or three stories. To approve this Application would,in effect,nullify those revisions and
substitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon information provided to
us,we conclude that there is no legal hardship present,and the Applicant merely wants the Town
to save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Yours truly,
Robert and Diane Low
i
i
1
I
REALTOR
BETTY SCHUTTE, REALTORS@
9707 SHELBYVILLE ROAD LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40223
(502)426-5483
November 5,2014
To Whom It May Concern:
I am the owner of Unit#1709 in Toscana South Condominium. I will not be in residence at the
Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by
Golden City. Nevertheless, I want to share my opinion with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO
THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw
fit to revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or
three stories.To approve the Application would,in effect,nullify those revisions and substitute
the non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon information provided to me,I
conclude that there is no legal hardship present,and the Applicant merely wants the Town to
save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Sincerely,
Betty S utte
Unit 1709
i
i
i
Mr.aad Mrs.JWq*IL LAP= i
35 W.Jefferson Ave.
Pearl River,NY 10965
Ph 845-353-9210 Fax:845-353-9291
i
October 27,2014
r
Mr.James C.Brady,Esq.
ARNSTEIN&LEHR LLP
200 East Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 1000
Fat Lauderdale,Florida 33301-2299
I
Dear Mr.Brady:
I am the owner of Unit 1710 in Toscana South Condomiiniitmm.I will not be in residence at the �
i
Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by
Golden City.Nevertheless,I want to share my opinion with the Board:
I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF
STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the
height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three stories.To approve the Application
would,in effect,nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elects Board for the Town
Commission.Based upon the information,provided to me,I conclude that there is no legal
hardship present,and the Applicant merely wants the Town to save it f-om a bad decision.
The applicant could have or should have realized the height restriction during the due diligence
process.If they planned on increasing the height limitations after the hand acquisition it must be
at their risk not at our loss of property value and water views.
THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
ly,
R.
1
Brady, James C.
From: CAROL COHEN<carolcohen1809@gmail.com>
Sent Wednesday, November 05,201411:05 AM
To: Brady, James C.
Subject: Golden City Project from an owner at Toscana
i
I am the owner of Unit 1809 in Toscana South Condominium. I will not be in residence at the Condominium on the date
of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by Golden City. Nevertheless, I want to share my
opinion with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF
STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise
the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three stories. To approve this Application i
would, in effect, nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon
information provide to me, I conclude that there is no legal hardship present, and the Applicant merely wants the Town to
save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED. To say the least, as a realtor, it goes without
saying the value of the
condos would decline with an obstructed view.When purchasing , I checked with the town and was told about their height
restrictions. This is a conflict of interest to say the least if the town approves the height requested.
Sincerely,
Carol and Jeffrey Cohen
t
i
I
f
I
i
1
I
f
I
i
i
I
c
i
1 �
11-06-'14 09:06 FROM- T-954 P0002/0002 F-336
Dear Mr. Brady,
I am the owner of Unit 1810 in Toscana South Condominium. I will not
be in residence at the Condominium on the date of the Board of
Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by Golden
City. Nevertheless,I want to share my opinion with the Board: I AM
OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT
AND NUMBER OF STOREBS OF THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPNIENT.
Several years ago, the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the
regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35
feet or three stories. To approve this Application would, in effect,
nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for the Town
Commission. Based upon information provide to me, I conclude that
there is no legal hardship present, and the Applicant merely wants the,
Town to save it from a bad decision.
THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Respectfully,
Stuart and Ellen Saffes
Sec. 30-40. Variances and interpretations.
Applications for variance approval shall be reviewed as provided herein.
(a)
Purpose.The purpose of a variance is to grant a reduction in the dimensional requirements
of this chapter, including, but not limited to, lot width, lot depth, lot size, size or percentage of
open space, bung coverage, building height, building setbacks,or required number of
parking spaces.
(b)
Board of adjustment and appeals. Requests for approval of some variances shall be
considered only by the board of adjustment and appeals.The board of adjustment and
appeals may approve,approve with conditions, or deny a request for a variance from the
requirements of this chapter.
(c)
Applications.Applications shall contain the information as may be required by and shall
comply with the requirements of section 30-33
(d)
Public notice. Public notice for public hearings to consider variance applications shall be
provided as required in section 30-46 of this Code.
(e)
Consideration of applications.As a basis for consideration of an application for variance
approval,the board of adjustment and appeals must determine an application is consistent
with the criteria listed below.
(1)
Special conditions. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to
the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands,
structures,or buildings in the same zoning district.
(2)
Hardship. The special conditions and circumstances truly represent a hardship, and
are not created by any actions of the applicant.
(3)
Literal interpretation. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same
zoning district under the terms of this chapter and would work unnecessary and
undue hardship on the applicant.
(4)
1
Special privileges.The grant of a variance will not confer upon the applicant any
special privilege denied to any other owner of land, buildings,or structures located in
the same zoning district.
(5)
Minimum variance.The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make
possible the use of the land, building, or stricture.
(6)
Purpose and intent The grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general
intent andu of this
P rpose chapter.
m
Financial hardship. Financial hardship is not to be considered as sufficient evidence
of a hardship in granting a variance.
(8)
Public welfare. The grant of the variance will not be injurious to the area involved or
otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
(fl
Approvals. In granting a variance,the board of adjustment and appeals may approve such
conditions and safeguards deemed necessary to conform to the intent and purpose of this
code.Violations of such conditions shall be deemed a violation of this chapter.The board
may also prescribe a reasonable time limit to inflate the action granted by the variance and
to complete such action. Failure to initiate and complete an approved variance shall render
such approval null and void, and the approval shall expire.
(9)
Required vote. The vote of at least four(4)members of the board of adjustment and appeals
is necessary to grant a variance from the requirements of this chapter.
(h)
i
Run with the land.A variance,when implemented in accordance with the approval granted
by the board of adjustment and appeals, shall run with the land in perpetuity. Unless a lesser
time is approved by the board of adjustment and appeals, a variance that is not implemented
shall expire eighteen(18)months following approval. Extensions of variance approvals shall
not be granted by the board of adjustment and appeals.
(i)
Variance null and void.A variance granted by the board of adjustment and appeals shall
automatically be null and void in any of the following circumstances:
(1)
Demolition of structure which was granted a variance;
(2)
Removal of a structure which was granted a variance; or
c (3)
Other similar action which eliminates the reason for granting the variance.
Use variances prohibited.The board of adjustment and appeals or any other body, unless
specifically authorized by this chapter, shall not grant a variance to establish or expand a use
2
i
not allowed as a permitted use or special exception use in any zoning district or a use not
allowed within a residential planned unit development.
(k)
Other lands and uses. Evidence of nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structuress,or
buikfings in the same zoning district or the permitted use of lams, structures, or buildings in
other zoning districts shall not be considered grounds for the authorization of a variance.
i Variance from development standards prohibited. The board of adjustment and appeals,
unless specifically authorized by this code,shall not grant a variance from the development
standards regarding uses as set forth in Table-30-4
(m)
Findings:
The board of adjustment and appeals shall make findings that an application for
variance approval has complied with the requirements of this section.
(2)
The board of adjustment and appeals shall further make a finding that the reasons
set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance,and that the variance is
the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land,
building, or structure.
(3)
The board of adjustment and appeals shall further make a finding that the granting of
the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter,
and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public
i welfare.
(n)
Appeals. Appeals of the decisions of the board of adjustment and appeals shall be filed with
the Fifteenth Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County.Appeals shall be filed within thirty
(30)calendar days following the decision by the board of adjustment and appeals.
(0)
Limitations.Whenever the board of adjustment and appeals has acted on a request for
administrative review or variance,the board shall not consider any request for substantially
the same action for a period of one year from the date of the initial decision.
(p)
Interpretations, decisions, and appeals.
(1)
Appeals of a decision, order, requirement, determination, or interpretation of the
building official or other town official regarding the provisions of this chapter shall be
filed with the board of adjustment and appeals.
(2)
Appeals shall be filed on an application established by the building official.
(3)
3
The appeal shah be considered by the board of adjustment and appeals not more
than thirty(30)days following receipt of a complete application by the building
official.
(4)
The vote of at least four(4)members of the board of adwtrnent and appeals is
necessary to grant an appeal or to reverse the decision, order, requirement,
determination, or interpretation of the building official or other town official.
(Ord.No. 684,Art. 111,§10. 7-25-00)
i
4
Jeffrey Sandelman
3905 S. Ocean Blvd.
Highland Beach, Florida 33487
November 12, 2014
Town of Highland Beach
Board of Adjustment and Appeals
3614 S. Ocean Blvd.
Highland Beach, FL 33487
RE: Request for a variance submitted by Golden City Highland Beach, LLC ("Developer")
Application#37015
1 am writing to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals as a resident of 3905 S. Ocean
Blvd., Highland Beach, FL. My home is located directly across from the proposed Golden City
Highland Beach Development ("Project"). The purpose of my letter is to express my vehement
objection regarding the requested variance proposed by Golden City Highland Beach, LLC,
under application#37015.
The request to exceed the permitted height limitation of thirty five (35') feet is, in my
view, excessive, unwarranted and likely would cause a nuisance. A variance of 174 feet is not a
minor request, and would constitute a major alteration of this portion of State Route AIA. It
would be spot zoning at its worst.
The Town, in its wisdom, designed a Zoning Plan to limit grotesque high rise buildings
on such a narrow stretch of seaside, picturesque roadway. The construction of Toscana was an
anomaly. To allow another high rise in this area would place an additional burden on an already
overly congested and dangerous roadway. Permitting any type of significant development at this
location will lead to increased traffic and resulting personal injuries. Furthermore, has anyone
taken into account the height of the building and the impact interior lighting would have on the
nesting habitat of sea turtles?
As I understand, the 35' height restriction has been in place for a significant period of
time and most certainly was in place prior to the date the Developer purchased the property.
Obviously,the Developer, as part of its due diligence, was aware that the property was subject to
reasonable zoning restrictions, as well as being comprised of mainly a mangrove swamp. The
mere visitation of economic hardship is not a reason to grant a variance of even a few additional
feet, let alone one of 174 feet, It should come as no surprise to the Developer that the residents
of the town would, and do, object to granting their request. This Developer is gambling that
residents will not pay proper attention to the goings on,at Town Hall.
Town of Highland Beach
Board of Adjustment and Appeals
November 12,2014
Page 2
The Project should retain the 35' height limit without a variance. I would also question
any modification which would make a residential multi-family development a more likely use.
Even a large number of townhouses and patio homes would disturb the area. The character of
the city has been enhanced by reason of the recent construction of single family detached
residences. Development should continue in that manner. To allow a building of this size on
AIA would be a gross mistake adversely affecting the entire neighborhood with traffic
congestion, shade and the disruption of a serene environmentally protected area.
In conclusion, interestingly, the Developer's name, Golden City of Highland Beach LLC
was chosen wisely. It references something of value, whether it be an element,an adjective or an
illusion to something of value. Why not even consider renaming the Developer as the "Goose
That Laid the Golden Egg, LLC?" The Developer knew what it was purchasing: seven(7)plus
acres of land for $1,500,000.00 in a prestigious South Florida ocean side community -- what a
deal! Now, if it can just "slightly" modify the existing height restriction from 35' to only 209',
this would be a financial windfall. It is almost as if the Developer bought the goose that laid the
proverbial, "Golden Egg."
This request is out of order. This type of complex, on this site, is wrong and most
certainly inappropriate in Highland Beach, in this or any day and age.
Thank you.
/Very truly yours
ey delm
r"
W'VEFFREYICORREMenu to Town of Highland Beach II-13-14doea
PAUL B.BERNSTEIN
Attorney at Law
185 N.W.Spanish River Boulevard,Suite 100
Boca Raton,Florida 33431
Tel: (561)988-2875
E-mail: PBernstein@kiapropertiea.com
November 12,2014
i
VIA&MAII.(V Beacb.FI..USI
Town of Highland Beach
Board of Adjustment and Appeals
3614 S.Ocean Blvd.
Highland Beach,FL 33487
RE: Variance Petition #37015 (the "Petition") submitted to the Town of Higbland Beach (the
'rows") Board of Adjustment and Appeals (the "Board") submitted by Golden City
Higbland Beach,LLC(the"Developer")for the property on South Ocean Boalevard with a
P.C.N.of 24-43-47-044WO14WO(the"Property")
I represent Jeffrey Sandehnan, the resident of 3905 S. Ocean Blvd., Highland Beach, Florida
Mr.Sandelman,as a long-time resident of the Town objects to the variance requested in the Petition. The
Petition is a blatant attempt at spot zoning for financial gain and, if granted, would be inconsistent with
the Town's current zoning restrictions.
As you know,the current Zoning Code of the Town of Highland Beach(the"Code")was adopted
on July 25, 2000. In February of 2013, Meir Swerdlow purchased the Property for $1,500,000.00 and
transferred ownership to Developer via quitclaim deed for nominal consideration in April of 2013. The
Property was vacant and is subject to a multiple-family-low density (RML) zoning as set forth in the
Code adopted in 2000. Among other requirements, the RML zoning district contains a THIRTY-FIVE
(35') FOOT MAXIMUM height restriction. This restriction is not new, and was in place prior to the
Developer's purchase of the Property. The Developer seeks to avoid the restrictions in the Code solely
for additional financial gain. The Code(as updated in 2000)was adopted by Highland Beach's governing
authority for a purpose; to foster a beachside community without the trappings of high rise buildings
blocking views or creating resulting havoc on the roadways.
i
The $1,500,00.00 purchase price paid by Mr. Swerdlow, a principal of the Developer, for in
excess of seven(7)acres of land in a prestigious South Florida ocean side community,reflected the state
of developabilty of the Property taking into account the existing circumstances at the time of such
purchase, including, without limitation, the nature of the preserve areas, wetlands, and, of course, the
zoning restrictions affecting the Property at the time of the purchase. None of those circumstances has
changed since the purchase nor for many years prior to such purchase. Developer's application contains
pictures showing the changing nature of the wetland delineation of the Property over time. Please
specifically note, however,that the pictures contained in Exhibit"C"to the Petition are from a Wetland
Town of Highland Beach
Board of Adjustment and Appeals
November 12,2014
Page 2
Delineation report prepared by Solutech, Inc. for the Property in December 2011 (two(2)years prior to
Developer's purchase of the Property). All of the pictures from that report included in the Petition were
taken more than three(3)years prior to Developer's purchase of the Property. The Developer walked in
with his eyes wide open.
A waiver by the Board of the height restrictions in the RML zoning district would result in a
financial windfall for the Developer and a significant change in the character of the development of the
Town from what is contemplated by the Code,all to the detriment of the Town and its residents.
There are certain requirements that must be addressed in connection with the Board's
consideration of the requested variance and this attempt at spot zoning. In lieu of addressing every
possible contortion for the relief requested,the Board should consider the following.
1. Hardship. Section 30-40(ex2)of the Code requires that in order for an owe to claim a
hardship, "special conditions and circumstances truly represent a hardship, and are not created by any
actions of the applicant." The applicant, Developer, purchased the property with full knowledge of the
existing height restriction. As noted above,its purchase price reflected the existing restrictions at the time
of the purchaser,which have not changed. The Petition ignores that all of the conditions from which the
Developer seeks relief existed at the time of the purchase (and with respect to the existing zoning
restrictions, thirteen (13)years prior to its purchase). The Code was designed specifically to take into
account the impact of development on the character of the Town and the effect on its residents, and
should not be abandoned as the Petition requests. Moreover,this is not a"special condition." Many areas
are impacted by wetlands and/or reasonable zoning rules, the Property happens to be one of them, and
these cumbersome conditions are not special.
2. Minimum Variance. Section 30-40(ex5)of the Code requires that any variance granted
must be"the minimum variance that will make possible the use of the land, building or structure." The
land that is developable(not encumbered by wetlands and mangroves)is usable without any variance,and
there is no variance from the Code that would permit the portion of the Property that is encumbered by
wetlands and mangroves to be usable because the usability of that portion of the land is not restricted by
the Code,but rather by environmental laws. The Developer could build many single family residences on
the Property without the necessity of a variance of even one foot. No change in the height restriction
could possibly meet the requirements of Section 30-40(ex5) of the Code and therefore, the requested
Petition should be denied on that basis alone.
3. Maximum Density. Table 30-2 of the Code notes that all properties in the RML district
have a MAXIMUM density of 6.0 units per acre. The Developer's Petition claims that nearly 90'/a of the
allowable density of the Property is lost due to natural habitat. As noted above, nothing has changed at
the Property since the time the Developer purchased the Property.
In addition,please note that the density allowed in the Code is a maximum density based on the
circumstances. For illustrative purposes, if 100'/6 of the Property were covered by wetlands and
mangroves,then no development would be permitted on any of the Property,as that is not a Code issue,it
is an environmental protection issue. Therefore, in the can of the illustration in this paragraph, even if
the Property was 7.43 acres and entitled to a maximum of 45 units on the Property, none would be
permitted if the Property were entirely comprised of wetlands. The same type of calculation is required in
this circumstance. The conditions on the ground do not permit the maximum density allowed by the
Town of Highland Beach
Board of Adjustment and Appeals
November 12,2014
Page 3
Code, and only the amount of density appropriate to the developable land pursuant to the Code is
permitted. The Developer has asked the Board to dispense with one section of the Code so that it can
have the maximum density for 7 acres constructed on.75 acres. The provisions of the Cock are intended
j to work in conjunction with each other, and the Board should not disregard one requirement in the Code
to achieve a MAXIMUM allowance in another section of the Code. The letter from the Town desponding
to density availability, which the Developer touts, clearly states that any development of the Property
must comply with all provisions of the Code,which certainly includes the height restrictions.
The Developer seeks relief from the Code because 90%of the property is unusable,claiming"the
density in the RML zoning district is 6.0 units/acre which yields 45 residential units for the
property—with a limited footprint to build on, the only option is to go up." This is not what the Code
intends. Again,the density levels set forth in the Code are maximums based upon the circumstances on
the ground. Because only .75 acres of the land is developable, the calculation of the permitted density
should be 6 units per acre of the land to be developed. If, in the future,the Developer was permitted to
develop any portion of the area that is currently covered by mangroves and wetlands on the Property,then
that area of the Property would also be permitted the same density Lewis, all subject to the height
restriction set forth in Table 30-2 of the Code.
The Developer should not expect(and the Board should not create a future expectation by other
developers) that the Town and the residents will provide a financial windfall to the Developer at the
expense of zoning inconsistency which undermines the intent of the Code. Any hardship claimed by the
Developer was self-created and did not occur overnight(or even in the five years prior to the Developer's
purchase of the Property).
4. Type of Development. The Developer states, "The RML zoning district is not intended
for single-family or duplex style development. However, singe family residences is effectively all that
could be built on the Property under the applicable dimensional requirements of the code. Therefore,the
only option is to build upwards." While single family homes may not be the most profitable type of
structure to the Developer, Table 30-4 of the Code does not treat the approval process for single family
homes differently than that of multiple family dwellings or townhouses,all requiring site plan approval,
and therefore,contrary to the Developer's Petition,single family homes receive the same treatment in this
zoning district as any of the other types of higher density uses preferred by the Developer.
5. Height of Neighboring Structures. The Developer's Petition refers to the fact that there
are many structures that "have building heights that exceed 35 feet." These other buildings were built
prior to the 35' restriction being put in place, and such restriction was adopted with the Code in 2000 to
prevent more buildings in excess of that height from being built in order to preserve the character of the
Town and usage rights of the residents thereof.
As noted above,to say that"no special privilege would be conferred to Developer by the award
of the variance," is absurd. If the Board grants the requested variance, the Developer would receive a
huge economic benefit,to the detriment of adjacent and contiguous buildings in the area.
There are a number of issues that are not included in the Developer's application, including,
possible layout, parking,and actual use of the Property. Based on the Petition, it is difficult to determine
how the use of the future development may impact the Town and its residents, including, without
limitation, increased traffic congestion and other safety concerns. However, in addition to the reasons set
forth above, the requested variance should be denied based on the change in height and its effect on the
r
Town of Highland Beach
Board of Adjustment and Appeals
November 12,2014
Page 4
air and light rights of neighboring residents and the negative impact on the character of the Town as
intended by the Code.
A 16 story building constructed directly across from my client's single family home would
constitute a deprivation of building and air rights that the Developer wishes to violate solely for its own
economic well-being. This variance request is not appropriate;it is improper and is effectively an attempt
at spot zoning which should be denied.
if you have any questions or comments,please do not hesitate to sill me. Thank you very much
for your consideration.
in
Mr. &Mrs. Charles R. Laverty, Jr.
10 Cedar Road
Belmont, MA 02478
October 20, 2014
Dennis Sheridan
3114 S. Ocean Blvd., Al A
Monterey House U#608
Highland Beach FL 33487
Re: Golden City Land Development
Unit 1001,Toscana West
Highland Beach, Fl,
Dennis,
I understand that a hearing has been confirmed for November 19, 2014 at
the Town Hall relative to the proposed Golden City Development South of -
Toscana.
We will not be in residence on the 19",but will be there in spirit in
opposition to the development. Thank you for your consideration and support!
We will be down (12/4 to 12/10), the week of the Boat Parade, to open up.
Looking forward to seeing you and Barbara soon, we are
Very truly yours,
le an ud
CRL,jr:nh 1l C "J� /
Valerie Oakes
�- Beverly Brown
Monday, October 27,2014 10.01 AM
To: voakes@ci.highland-beach.fl.us
Subject FW:Golden City
Please include with your correspondence for eh Hearing.
From:Therese Schwab rmailto:t35440aoI.cmn1
IQ P 1, Saturday, October 25, 2014 3:33 PM
TO: Beverly Brown
Subject Ford: Golden City
Sent from my Wad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Therese Schwab<t3544&aol.com>
Date: October 25,2014 at 3:24:23 PM EDT
To: "icbrady@fflnstein.com"<jcbrady Wnstein.com>
Subject: Golden City
I am the owner of unit 201 in Toscana South condominium .I will not be in residence at the
condominium on the date of the board of adjustment hearing on the application for variance by
Golden city.nevertheless I want to share my opinion with the board. I am opposed to the
application to increase the height and number of stories of the proposed development. Several
years ago the town commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the height of
buildings in this Zoning district to 35 feet or three stores .To approve this application would,in
effect,nullify those revisions and substitute the non elected board for the town commission
based upon the information provided to me,I conclude that there is no legal hardship present
and the applicant merely wants the town to save it from a bad decision.The application should
be denied.
Therese and James Schwab
Sent from my iPad
i
REGENCY HIGHLAND
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
September 24, 2014
To: Mayor Bernard Featherman,
Vice-Mayor Ron Brown,
Commissioners: Carl Feldman, Dennis Sheridan, Louis Stern
Your Honorable Mayor, Vice-Mayor and City Commissioners,
The Board of Directors of Regency Highland Condominium Association, as
representatives of our community, in conjunction with the expressed wishes of our
community members, as expressed in the attached petition, strongly oppose
granting the variance requested by Golden City, Highland Beach, LLC. The
requested variance is directly adjacent to our property and poses a direct hardship
to our residents. Our residents purchased their homes with the expectation that
the protected approximately 90% wetlands, including 2.00 acres of submerged
aquatic vegetation and 4.58 acres of mangrove would remain protected as
prescribed by law and that the City's height restriction of 50' on new construction
would be adhered to as well. Not only would the proposed 16 story structure
adversely affect the views and quality of life of our residents, but the proposed
construction would adversely affect our property values as well. Additionally,
from an ecological standpoint, the proposed structure would have a deleterious
effect on the estuarine environment, which includes, but is not limited to, the
manatees, turtles, various fish and wildlife and vegetation that utilize the above
described protected wetland and mangrove areas as spawning and feeding
grounds, as well as a protective area from passing boats and vessels.
We are making a formal request to forward to our management office any and all
meetings, workshops, discussions open to Highland Beach residents so that our
Board of Directors and unit owners may the opportunity to attend and express our
concerns.
Respectfully,
Board of Directors of the Regency Highland Condominium Association
3912 SOUTH OCEAN BOULEVARD ❑ HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA 33487 0 (561) 272-2506
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
WE THE UNDERSIGN OBJECT TO ANY VARIANCES ON THE
PROPERTY SOUTH OF TOSCANA AND,NORTH OF REGENCY
HIGHLAND ON AlA
zo 4 pv�)
c1ld, �/'7f
C44u� /0/0-v- dov----
5 o ce 0 4 v Lq
9i 6
4
s A
i: .1 PZ
b
w
a
t
I
�� � _ � � ('rte ��. ���� �,� 1
-701
<-t"Iri cz vsv),�fl P-o
J, o
h t 5t(A/I Q
KjA
zo
C
A A I
v VV V
Vo
C
,fi
fS -
Cl
JVev
_
- --------------- -
r
7-5
C�tLL
I
/JAC
B
CO
t NL
LA
VIAC
Valerie Oakes
W-4"M Beverly Brown
it Tuesday,October 28,201410-42 AM
� voakes@ci.highland-beach.fl.us
Stobject FW.Golden City Land Development Variance Nov 19,2014 Hearing
Ron : Stewart Perlow DMD fmaiOgdecosallor(ahotmail.com
Soft Monday,October 27,2014 12:02 PM
To: Beverly Brown; icbrady@amstein.com Adam Grandis
Subject Golden City Land Development Variance Nov 19,2014 Bearing
I am the owner of Unit 710 in Toscana West Condominium. I am a full-
time resident at the Condominium and on the date of the Board of
Adjustment Hearing will be attending the application for variance by
Golden City. Nevertheless, I want to share my opinion with the Board: I
AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT
AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
Several years ago, the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the
emulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet
Mgs
or three stories. To approve this Application would, in effect, nullify
those revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for the Town
Commission. Based upon information provide to me, I conclude that there
is no legal hardship present, and the Applicant merely wants the Town to
save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE
DENIED.
Stewart Perlow DMD
Owner Toscana West 710
Highland Beach,FL 33487
561 276 3345
561 542 6964
FREDRIC J. LAFFIE
2095 Legion Street
Bellmore,New York 11710
October 30, 2014
Town Clerk Beverly M. Brown
3514 South Ocean Boulevard
Highland Beach,Florida 33487
Dear Ms. Brown:
I am the owner of Unit 903 in Toscana South Condominium. I will not be in residence at the
Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by
Golden City. Nevertheless, I want to share my opinion with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO
THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to
revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three
stories. To approve this Application would,in effect, nullify those revisions and substitute the
non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon information provide to me, I
conclude that there is no legal hardship present, and the Applicant merely wants the Town to
save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Sincerely,
Fredric J. Laffie
Cc: James Brady, Esq.
:V4
VED
2014°beaofd
Beach, Ft
Steven M Terk
3740 S Ocean Blvd#1210
Highland Beach,FL33487
November 9,2014
Town Clerk
Highland Beach Town Hall
3614 S Ocean Blvd
Highland Beach,FL 33487
Re:Board of Adjustment&Appeals Public Hearing November
Golden City Land Development Request
I am the owner of Unit 1210 in Toscana South Condominium. I am a permanent resident I want to share
my opinion with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND
NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission
correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet
or three stories. To approve this Application would,in effect,nullify those revisions and substitute the
non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon information provided to me,I conclude that
there is no legal hardship present,and the Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad
decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
V tr ly
Steven,M Terk
Cc:lames C Brady,Esq,200 East Las 01as Boulevard;Suite 1000;Ft Lauderdale FL 33301-
2299
Valerie Oakes
From: Ted& Renee Alman <rtalman@sprintmail.com>
Sent Friday, November 14,2014 1128 AM
To: Valerie Oakes
Subject: Vote on proposed variance
Good morning,
We are owner/residents at Regency Highland,3912 South Ocean Blvd.,and are unable to attend the public hearing on
November 19.
We would like to express our strong opposition to the proposed variance request for property located between Regency
Highland and Toscana.We do NOT want a 16-story building to be constructed on this environmentally sensitive site.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Renee and Ted Alman
rtalman0swintmail.com
Valerie Oakes
From: Honorava@aol.com
Sent Tuesday, November 18,201410:39 AM
To: Valerie Oakes
Subject: Fwd:Proposed Golden City Variance
From: msirm1ftmail.cDrn
To: Honoravagbaol.com
Serf 11/16/2014 9:11:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Proposed Golden City Variance
I am the owner of Unit 1208 in Toscana South Condominium I will not be able to attend the Board of
Adjustment Hearing on November 19. Nevertheless, I want to share my opinion with the Board: I AM
OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES
OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit
to revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three
stories. To approve this Application would,in effect,nullify those revisions and substitute the non-
elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon information provide to me,I conclude that there
is no legal hardship present,and the Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad
decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Write that email and send it to voakes&i.highland-� flxs with a cc to corn
thanks
Ilyne Mendelson
November 17,2014
TO: Town Clark of Highland Beach
SUBJECT: Board of Adjustment Hearing November 19th,2014 - Variance by Golden City
We are the-owners of Unit 1203 in Toscana West Condominium.it will be impossible for us to attend the
Board of Adjustment Heating on the application for variance by Golden City,
Nevertheless,we wish to share our opinion with the Board:
WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw ftt to revise the regulation to limit the height of
buildings In this zoning district to 35 feet or three stories.To approve this Application would,In effect,
nullify not only those revislonj but also the whole,purpose and 2n?gm, of those revisions and substitute
the non-elected Board for the Town Commission.
Based upon lnfbrmation provided to us,we conclude that there Is no legal hardshippresent,and the
Applicant merely wants the Town to save It from a bad decision.
Speaking of hardship and decisions,we enquired about the regulation governing this particular lot
before we acquired our unit last year.The regulated limits were Important in our decision to buy the
unit.It never occurred to us that such regulations could be waved.Why regulate if this Is the case?How
can individuals like us trust these regulations if they can be waved?After all,this is the ultimate land of
law.Changing regulations to fit one company at the expense of many established taxpayers is not right.
THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Thank YOU for yoas under-standing
Suzanne Fournier
Denis Ouellet
Adaro, Janice L.
From: RKSMYWAY@aol.cDm
Sent: Monday, November 17, 201410:43 AM
To: Brady,James C.
Subject. Fwd: Proposed Golden City Variance
Attachments: winmail.dat
From: rnsirmllftmail.cDrn
To:rksmMygbaol.com,Honorava(cpaol.com
Sent 11116/2014 9:11:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
SuN: Proposed Golden City Variance
I am the owner of Unit 1208 in Toscana South Condominium. I will not be
able to attend the Board of Adjustment Hearing on November 19.
Nevertheless, I want to share my opinion with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO
THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to
revise the regulations to limit the height of buildings in this zoning
district to 35 feet or three stories. To approve this Application would,
in effect, nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for
the Town Commission. Based upon information provide to me, I conclude that
Uwe is no legal hardship present and the Applicant merely wants the Town
to save it from a bad decision. THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Write that email and send it to voakes(cD-ci.highland-beach.fl.us
<maifto:voakesOci-hi-ghland-beach.fl.us> with a cc to icbrady@amstein.com
<mailto:*cbradY(ZDamstein.com>
thanks
Ilyne Mendelson
Harvey&Undo Newman
40 East 80th Street
New York, MY 10075
November 11,2014
James C.Brady,Esq
ARNSTEIN&LEHR LLP
200 East Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 100
Fort Lauderdale,FL 33301-2299
Dear Mr. Brady:
I am the Owner of Unit 1408 In Toscana North Condominium. I will not be in residence at the
Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance
by Golden City. Nevertheless,I want to share my opinion with the Board. I AM OPPOSED TO
THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORES OF THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the
regulations to limit the height of the buildings in this zoning district to 35 or three stories. To
approve this Application would, in effect,nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elected
Board for the Town Commission. Based upon the information provided to me, I conclude that
there is no legal hardship present,and the Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a
bad decision. THEREFORE,THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Cordially,
Harvey&Undo Newman
Aftro, Janice L.
From: Bonnie Hirsch<herbonl8@me.com>
Sent: Friday, November 14,20141:55 PM
To: Brady, James C.
Cc: Adam Grandis; llyne Mendelson
Subject: Golden City variance application
To:The Town Clerk of Highland Beach
From: Bonita Hirsch
I am the owner of Unit 1501/1601 in Toscana West Condominium. I will not be in residence at the Condominium on the date
of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on the application for variance by Golden City. Nevertheless,I want to share,my opinion
with the Board: I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES OF
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations to
limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three stories. To approve this Application would,in effect,
nullify those revisions and substitute the non-elected Board for the Town Commission. Based upon information provide to me,
I conchide that there is no legal hardship present,and the Applicant merely wants the Town to save it from a bad decision. THE
APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Bonita Hirsch
3720 S Ocean Blvd#1541 / 1601
Highland Beach,FL 33487
561-702-8349
herbonl8amacxom
MARK KAPLAN
3740 SOUTH OCEAN BLVD
UNIT 1803
HIGHLAND BEACH,FL 33487
Dear Board Members,
I am the owner of Unit 1803 in Toscana South Condominium.I will not be in
residence at my Condominium on the date of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on
the application for variance by Golden City.Nevertheless,I want to share my
opinion with the Board.I AM OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE
HEIGHT AND NUMBER bF STORIES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
Several years ago,the Town Commission correctly saw fit to revise the regulations
to limit the height of buildings in this zoning district to 35 feet or three stories.To
approve this Application would,in effect,nullify those revisions and substitute the
non-elected Board for the Town Commission.Based upon information provided to
me,I conclude that there is no legal hardship present and the Applicant merely
wants the Town to save,it from a bad decision.THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE
DENIED.
Sincerely,
Mark Kaplan
t
Monday,November 3,2014
CERTIFICATE OF MAH NG
This is to certify that on Monday,November 3,2014,the Town of Highland Beach
mailed a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing for the property located at S.
Ocean Blvd. (PCN 24-43-47-04-00-001-0030 ,Highland Beach,Florida,to the attached
list. This mailing consisted of 21 notices.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 3 day of November
2014.
Valerie Oakes,Deputy Town Clerk
� Town of Highland Beach
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
Before me this 3day of November 2014 personally appeared Valerie Oakes,Deputy
Town Clerk for the Town of Highland Beach,who is known to be the person described
and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to and before me that she
executed said instrument for the purposes therein expressed.
Notary Seal: v ROSALIE DEMARTINO
°= MY COMMISSION#EE080671
.,• EXPIRES April 04,2015
(407)398 0153 FlorldaftaryServicexom
Notary Public—State of Florida
C
TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS
The Board of Adjustment&Appeals of the Town of Highland Beach will conduct a Public Hearing
in the Town of Highland Beach Town Hall Complex located at 3614 S. Ocean Blvd., Highland
Beach,FL 33487 on Wednesday,November 19,2014 at 9:30 a.m.to consider the following:
REQUEST SUBMITTED BY GOLDEN CITY HIGHLAND BEACH, LLC
FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT SOUTH
OCEAN BOULEVARD(24-43-474400-001-0030),HIGHLAND BEACH,
FL. REQUESTING THE FOLLOWING: APPLICATION#37015—RELIEF
FROM HIGHLAND BEACH CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTION 30-Ka),
AND TABLE 30-2,THAT REQUIRES A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
OF 35 FEET IN RESIDENTIAL MULTiIPLE FAMILY LOW DENSITY
GUvEL)ZONING DISTRICT.
Application is available for public inspection at the Town Clerk's Office, 3614 S. Ocean Blvd.,
Highland Beach,Florida during normal business hours—Monday—Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30
PM. Any person who decides to appeal the decision made by the Board of Adjustment&Appeals
made at this meeting with respect to any matter considered,you will need a record of the proceedings
and,for such purposes,you may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based
Valerie Oakes,CMC,Deputy Town Clerk
Published in the Palm Beach Post on Saturday,November 8,2014
This notice to be mailed certified mail and return receipt on Monday,November 3,2014,to
property 3owners located within 300 feet of the of the affected property, excluding property
rt3
owned by the applicant.
Yta �uirww� irri l
tilt spit sow .bdbft !
i