HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Council Agenda 100704 Sanctuary PUD. -.
..
\
- @2.'22/02
e
11:19 JDH RNESTHESIOLOGY + 561 626 7143 -ur\csu; Fly1 --
1 understend end will complywiih the folfawing:
That if thc modiication is not completed as approve&, said approval can be revoked
and the rmdibtbn will bo llequirad to be muad by theowner at owt~~'sexpense
comn ~ll;r(ls BS a result of the installation.
codes rurd to obtain all applicubk pennits
'fhat owner is respotBible for payment of and repair to any andall darrragt dam to
* and City Wi
TO gbida by the decision of the ARB or the bard of Dkdctors.
Ifownet's request is not approvbd, or work pextbnnai is diikent than approved ARB
owwr undcrpcends andagmes, by sigdngbebw, that owmr mybesutjcct to kgal.
action by tbc msociath and that owner shaUbercsponsiblt at rrlI temombkattorrtey
fces and oosts. * No matedab wbrtstwrsr may be pbrcsd on tbt nuda, mdewrllq driveways or aay
other am &Sbk fmm the d. Tbis includes mad, dirt, wood, pavem, Isadscape
matdab, e&. Any Oomnorr am dmmagcr, W8h to be pdd by rrCt mer.
is rapnsiblt br oomplying with all Easmats, State,
A/as/o &
Date of Reqwst
COWN
Return To:
'lit0
APPROVED
NOT
1s:
Tbt sanctuary PBG HOA, Inc.
P.0. Box 32932
TeL 563/6264917 fk. 626-7143
Palm &acb Gardens, FL. 33420
d PF
4h(yw\
7871
I
&/22/[32 11:19 JISH FINESTHESIOLOCY - 561 626 ?Id3 .-
!r i ---. .-. ".--{- .. . . -..- i I -- , . I-
NO. 790
..- / .....'
w3
Sanctuary Homeowners Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 30154
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33420
561f792-2934 fax 792-1932
December 9,1998
Mr, & Mrs. John & Denise Hein
Satinwood Lane
Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Msl. Ching Lam
89 Isatinwood Lane
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
RE: The Sanctuary HOA, Inc.
i Drainage Easement
De$r Mr. & Mrs. Hein & Ms. Lam:
1 Your Board of Directors has asked me to write to you concerning the drainage
easement which runs in between lot 135 & lot 89. This easement has been partially
blocked by landscaping. This landscaping must be removed to allow access for the lake maintenance company.
The company is called Aquatic Services and once a month they spray the lake to
keep the algae down. To perform this job in a timely fashion, they use a boat and must
therefore have sufficient access to launch the boat. They were previously using an area to
the North of your property, as the area was open and accessible, however the association
did not have any easement rights in that area and the owner has now planted landscaping.
I v, within ten (10) days of the ..
date osake is showing signs of neglect. I have
endosed the pertinent section of your homeowners documents which discusses this matter.
Your prompt compliance with this request is greatly appreciated. Please feel free to call my office should you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Beverley Jamason On behalf of The Sanctuary HOA, Inc.
Enclosure
FACSIMILE . . --. _- -.
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
lo500 N. MILITARY TRAIL PALM BEACH GARDENS, MRlDA 33410-4698
Ju/ly 6,1999
. Beverley Jamason
Best in Property Management
Pqlm Beach Gardens, FL 33420
Rd: The Sanctuary PUD - Access to Lake
D$ar Ms. Jamason:
I r cently visited the Sanctuary community to review the proposed trail through the upland
pr I serve next to the lake that Advanced Aquatics had partially flagged. After reviewing your
J4ua1-y 29,1999 facsimile, field conditions and the approved Sanctuary PUD plans, I can
uqkierstand your lake maintenance dilemma. - inere are me (3) cvatnage easements around the lake. The easements are 1 -. wicE%Xiat
eqbipment and personnel can gain access to all drainage facilities, including the lake. NormdbJ,
u$tain landscaping and fencing- &wed in ememmta bmxwtm&qwtn be mmewdrmd
=IFaQ%=+k . If obstructions occur in any easement that prevents general
mzhtenance access, I would suggest working with the all property owners to resolve this issue.
In lfhe field, I also noticed that some property owners are installing landscaping within the 20'
wi@e lake maintenauce easement. The City permitted the developer to install clusters of Cypress
& around the lake, but access around the lake remained unobstructed. I would caution the
Asisociation about allowing property owners to landscape off their property for the same reasons
as 1 discussed above.
I awe enclosed a copy of the Tract ''U-j'' upland preserve (-
laqguage does not prohibit nature trails, but otherwise is very remictive. An access for lake
mdtenance equipment is out of the question. The Ci+y&twk al
ess a raised five-foot wide
bodwdwalk with rails can be built to direct all pedestrian traffic from the sidewalk to the lake
easement. The City feels a boardwalk would be user fiiendly for all ages, and would
correct approach to transverse this area. If the Association is interested in
coI1cept, the remaining location of the trail should be flagged, and an application
fo administrative approval by the City should be submitted with the boardwalk construction
Pl L -
If can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me at 776- 1064.
A
Jack Hanson, Building Official
Tammy Jacobs, City Engineer
a IY
W K
8
UI F
i: m
c
I I I
-i,.
b---.- . ... .
.-
/‘
-#I- --&-. ----____.- --
-
3 n
C 6
N
B
N
I-- -
Sec. 78-562. Drainage easements.
(a) Easement required. When a subdivision is traversed by a canal, watercourse,
drainage way, channel, or stream, a drainage easement or right-of-way shall be provided.
The easement shall substantially conform to the lines of the canal or watercourse. The
easement shall be of such width and construction or both as will be adequate for the
purpose. Wherever possible, surface water runoff should be maintained by an open
channel with adequate width for access and maintenance. The open channel shall be of an
adequate width for maximum potential volume of flow, plus required areas for operations
and maintenance.
(b)
perpetual unobstructed easements of adequate width for such drainage facilities shall be
provided across property outside the right-of-way lines and with satisfactory access to the
right-of-way. Easements shall be indicated on the plat. Drainage easements shall be
1 carried from the street to a natural watercourse or to other drainage facilities.
Street rights-of-way. If drainage facilities are located within street rights-of-way,
5 63. Lake maintenance tract
sides of existing canals or watercourses, to a distance to be determined by the city.
(e)
flooding or overflowing during storm periods, whether or not included in areas for
dedication, shall be preserved and retained in their natural state as surface water
management ways. Surface water management areas subject to periodic flooding shall
not be included in land area necessary to comply with minimum lot dimensional
requirements.
(Ord. No. 17-2000, 5 28 1,7-20-00)
Surface water management areas. Low-lying lands along watercourses subject to
(a) Purpose. A lake maintenance tract shall be provided along the edge of all
permanent lakes and water bodies included in a subdivision or plat as a common feature.
The purpose of the tract is to provide permanent access for all operational, repair, or
maintenance activities related to such water bodies.
(b) Creation as a separate tract. Within all subdivisions or plats, a lake maintenance
tract shall be created as a separate parcel around all lakes and water bodies created as a
common feature. However, the city council may approve a reduction in the required lake
maintenance tract to allow such improvements as the installation of permanent
recreational facilities.
(c) minimum slope of 8: 1 or as required by the city engineer.
Minimum dimensions. A lake maintenance tract shall be at least 20 feet wide, with a
0
(e)
prohibited from installation of permanent improvements within a lake maintenance
easement. The easement holder may allow, subject to removal agreements, the
installation of nonpermanent improvements such as recreational equipment, excluding
Improvements prohibited. Owners of property abutting a lake maintenance tract are
3 I
pools and similar improvements, which can be easily moved to allow maintenance and
repair activities.
(Ord. No. 17-2000, 0 282,7-20-00)
Secs. 78-564--78-570. Reserved.
Sec. 78-1 85. Utility easements.
(a) Easement construction. Paved driveways, fences, and patios without walls or screen
enclosure, may be constructed upon or across any public utility easement which is located
within the front, side, or rear yard of any lot.
e
cmwmtmc%bfivFsuch driveway m,p&&m. A waiver is not
required for similar use of a front yard utility easement.
(c)
applicant shall acknowledge in writing that the owner shall be responsible for any
damage to the utility company's improvements.
(d)
written certificate of acknowledgment, in a form prescribed by the city, that
improvements have been constructed on the utility easement.
(Ord. No. 17-2000, $98,7-20-00)
Damages. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any improvements, the
Acknowledgment. When a building permit is issued, the applicant shall execute a
Palm Beach Garderrc, FL
Township: 43 Range: 42 Loqs): 0460 Block000 Sectfon: 24
Book Page:.
Subdivision: Marina Gardens
Address: 71300 U.S. Highwaym Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408
S.928.00 Pa&
2,048.00 Bui#iiCertificohbn
48a.08 schads I 9,913.9
4,229.40
83.32
,
I I I
Before any building is occupied. it will be necessary to secure a certificate of occupancy.
Before building mstruction is stated, approved sanitary_.facili for vatfun& shall be provided.
Permits shall became null and void if authorized work is not sliwted within six mths of issue dag.
d~gnnbrgdWrpnmit,~rcllbddaqprbcasbclet~bolLhginftrlcomplbnorrlhk%r#rrg~~cdw rClb. Qjqr of Palm B.pm -urd fuctner agree mat if any question my arise o rhe meaning of said eodes. eat mer rwiU accept tho dliaala
htevrelalion.pfss# axks ard all other codes and be gowmed eecanlingiy,
"FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONSTRUCTIN LIEN LAW CAN RESULT IN TI$E PROPERTY
.
!
L -- OWNER PAYING TWICE FOR BUILDING IMPROVEMMS:. / - -.
I- BUILDING OFFICIAL
i
. I
MANDATORY: Post permit and drawings on site
Call between 7:OO & 7:45 on the morning of the inspection for a time
24 Hour notice for inspections. Call (561) 799-4283 i
TOT& P. 02
c CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
wdooM.cyufARllTRan-pALIl~tARDEwa~-
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
December 18,1995
PuIteHomesCorporation
33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway
suite 200
BIoomfieldHills, Micbip48304
RE: Theszmctmy
Plat I 8.ud2, Tracts U-1 and U-2 @/aUplmdpreserVeAmss) &Tract W-2 (Ida Wetland
Reserve Area) dk Tract W-2 (Ida Wetland Presewe Area); The sanctuary PlannedUnit
Developnneot- WeStiemdNbNaaaal Areas
This letter is a fnrmal Notice of Viiialion ofverious City Codes. On April 7, April 10, July 1 1,
Angust22 octoba23,october24, dNavember29,199!5 inspections were-
concerning tk above refierabced PFoPerty and the fbllowillg violations of the ci of Palm BeaEh
GardenSwerefipKk
Location:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Location:
Location:
NOTICE OF VIOLAT'ION
Mark I. Hendricbn
Ci Forester
cc:
NOTICE OF MOLATION
LINDAHL, BROWNING, FERRARI & HELLSTROM, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS & SURVEYORS Eb
108%
MEMORANDUM
TO. Linda Kosier
m0M.
DATE:
SuBJEC'E THE SANCRJARY - RE-PUTS of TRACTS "IF-2" and "0-6" (H3-1085)
Our Enginemkg and Survey Departments have reviewed the above referenced Plats for cornpkince
with State and City of Palm Beach Gardens requirements. IkIHats me iR tedmkd campkme.
The drainage easements lying outside the Plats have been submitted and reviewed, and their
0.R.Book and Pages are shown on the replat. Therefore, fiom an engineering and Sunreying
standpoint, we are able to recommend these plats for recordation.
LWdb
cc: Bobbie Herakovich m%& ;wat&.
Jack Hanson
February 2,1996
Re: The Sancnuarp
Skb
n
m
e 71
h)
c c
'H
.
1 I Id IR
P 7
.- . .. -. .
B 3
c1. rr 0 1
3 YI
Q,
a a
m cr
P) rc
CI 0 3
r 0 t3
pl rr
c1. 0 Y
X PI a
Kl
. 01 f" 'I 'V YV
U
I > Z
V
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
lo500 N. MlutARY TRAlL PALM BEACH OARDENS. FLORIDA 334104698
April 24, 1993
Pulte Home Cor oration
1350 East Newport Center, Suite 200 Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
RE: The SZUlCtUaZy PUD - Replat
c/o Susan Pril E aman
Dear Ms. Prillaman:
Attached are three letters and a document for Below I have summarized the comments that are pages, and need to be corn leted so the on the City council agen B a:
0
0
Zka~ &rafm?ge eammm&s Jying outside the Plat still need to be conveyed b se arate instrument, When these are conveyed, prior to de fat recordation, the ORB and page need to be reflected on &e Plat. [Please forward the original recorded document to us for our records.]
The area tabulation on the Plat of the Sanctuary Plat NO. 2 incorrect1 shows Tract NU-4n as containin 0.86 acres. !ma* An affidavit correcting this scriveners error shall be recorded prior to lat recordation, [Please forward the original recorded gocument to us for our records. Bote: The proposed replat of traat a*0-6B* would crhaage tha
4eB.lc aYYm matents are required between lot 163 lot 159 and 160 prior to final plat si n-off. and [Please forward the original recorded document to us or our records. 3
to be plat n the to us
W-4" shou I d have been labeled as Tract n%-6n.
tract to aaU-3Ba, not *aU-4BB.
9
The Sanctuary +plat of Tract "0-6" submitted April 22, 1996 is still under review and any comments will be transmitted as soon as possible. All the afore-mentioned items need to be reviewed and roceeding to roved by the City's Attorney and Engineer prior to Council. If you have any Questions, please P eel free to act us at (407) 775-8295.
Sincerely, 1
Mark City
cc:
I. Hendrickson Forester
Rich Walton, PCZ Director L nnette Lannin cit Engineer SLve pel-, kta Zome carp- Bob Bente, LDS
RESOLuTlON 64,1996
!
A REsOLUTloN OF THE CITY COUNCDL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FtoRIDk AMENDING THE
SANCIUARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, APPROVED
ON NOVEMBER 4, 1993 BY ORDINANCE 22, 1993,
PROviDINGFORANEFFECIlvEDATE.
Section 2. Said ameedments shalt be in accordance with thc plans on file in the City's
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a
Apd IO, 1396, The Sanctuary Site Plan by Land Design South. 1 Sheet.
F- 5,1996, Tbt Sanawry Existing Coliditioas by Land Dtsign South. 1 Sheet.
Fcb- 5.1996, Thc Sanctuq Detail Plan by Land Design South. 1 Sheet-
Febntary5,1996,TbtSanCarary Overall Coashuctim Plan by Land DcsignSourh, 1 Sheer.
&d 10,1996, TIac saachrary Habitat 430~ Sections by Laud Design South. 1 Sheet.
Deamkrr 19,1995, The Sanctwy Typical LOO Foot Elevation.
Jm~~ary 23,1996, swey ora ~andscape ~erm Encmcbment sanctmq mat 2 by
Beach Mark. 1 SW.
J=W =.19%#m si-uary pwipgand Drab@ PIrpbysCbattcrald hgia.
3!kets.
3.
5.
Am
LINDAV. KOSIER, CMC, CITY CLERK
Ai)PROVEDASTOFORMAND
LEGALSUFFICIENCY
BY
Memo to File
From: Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Subject IIxe Sanctuary
Date: June 5 1993
I hime reviewed the Landscape plans submitted May 2'7,1993 for the above-referenced
project and the foXlawlng are my commends and concerns:
1) The tree preservation overlay does not match the Master Site Pian. ZbShmem
2) There is no b;ee preservaa *on planned on individual lots This petitBonrms submitted prior to the adoption of the new hdscape code. The new code wdd reqpire one tree or
two palms per every lo00 spare feet of open space, induding astreettsee. This petition
the estate lot would need four more trees. Eadsting trees sad on these lots during
&odd be indicated on the overlay.
has propod street trees, however the patio home lot would reqnire one addithd treeand
CoIlStNction would sat&& tbis condition and &e old tree pmsemm 'on requiremertts.
3) help screen the adjaent bare house wall.
me typical patio lot landscape plan needs additionai Ian&capmg between lots to
4) There is two Werent lists proposed for the street trees. The shade tree Iist on the
site plan shod match the street tree Iist on the typical residential plans, Also, I do not believe Wax Myrtle should be ctrrm'fied as a shade tree.
5) I do not recommend the use of Black Olive, Eucalyptus, or Queen palms on tbis Site. I recommend using more native species in all proposed plant lists. This site could be mare
erroiroMlentantyrespoasibleifthenewIan~ ismreoompatibletoth.eesisthgplants
and tr- For me.xample, the eastern Is buffer could, asproposed, could have Black
Olive trees and a Pittosporum hedge. It wodd be more appropriate to have Live Oaks and
Wax myrtle or Saw palmetto.
6) There is no exbaing or proposed vegetation planned within the 123' proposed mamaingo Road right-of-wq. Crystal Point seems to have aaticipated a future d by
havingawall. Fremchmads~dhghasamrktyofbackyardtc~ The!hchuuy
has a 51y landscaped bufk. A streetscape for this road wcluld be aesthetically bcne&hI
br ad-nt property owners. A 6 &&link hce for safety 8Dd on the southside
wonld seem appropriate Both of these ideas would need to be feviewed by the agencies
respaosible for the rieht-of-wa.
7) The five acre lake is large enough to support some Iittod lake shore vegetation- I
would recommend planting, at a rnhhmm, CvpreSs trees around the waters edge.
I
To:
PALM BEACH GARDENS
J- 3,
FROM2
Planning and Zoning Commission
Planning and Zoning Staff
SUBJECP b Workshop Meeting for Petition 2-9203, bg !I%m&hy Henrandez, agent Ibr
Pdte Homes, Contract Parchaser, to rezone a 80.Wacre site fkum the Palm
designation of PUD, Planned Unit Developmemt and site plan approval fibr
thecoalstmdm n of 184 singk-fe detached and zero iotlline residential
homes, Thissiteislocatedapprarrima~~~feet~of~~~Farms -*- e tely west of Crystal Point residential sabdmision. (2e41S-43E)
BeachcountyzoningdesiignatroaofAR,AgricollmalResideatialtot~city's
The agent, Timothy Hernandez, is requesting to rezone a 80.l3-acre site from Palm Beach
County zoning designation of AR, Agricultural Residential to the City's designation of PUD, PIanned Unit Development and site plan approd for the construction of 184 single-famity detached and zero lot-line residential homes. Conditional Concurrency Resedon has
been granted for this development with the condition of a left-turn lane on the south approach of Prosperity Farms Road at Flamingo Road. This site was also considered €or
a l35 single-family detached custom residential homes development (Statwood).
This vacant site is located ly 1,350 feet west of Prosperity Farms Road and iS bounded to the north and w~chmeds Creek Planned comxnum 'ty Distrid; to the
east by Qrystal Point residential Planned Unit Development (RS/SE) in uninco~~~rated
MIXI Beach Countr, and to the south by Frenchman's Landing residential Planned Unit Deveiopment (RS/S) in unincorporated Palm Beach County (see map).
a
The proposed development will contain 184 dwelling units comprised of 69 single-family detached homes and 115 zero lot-line homes. The Comprehensive Land Use designation for the subject site is RL, Residential Low, which allows 4 dwelling units per acre and up
to 5 dwelling units per acre through a Planned Unit Development The propod project will have a gross density of 225 dwelling units per acre. The typical minimum lot size
the single-family detached homes is 70 feet m width by 120 feet in depth and 50
The development will be accessed from the extension of Flamingo Road west of Prosperity Farms Road. The si* plan identifies a =foot ultimate right-of-way for the proposed Elamingo Road. The petitioner has submitted a "Special Road section" whicb calls for a lZO-fmt, 4-1- Rural Arterial (see road section). City Engineer David Getz reammends
that prior to City Council approval of the PUD, the City should receive written approval
from Palm Beach county of the 123-foot Ultimate right-of-way as welt as the 1M).foot Speciai Road Section (see memo).
by 120 feet in depth for the zero lot-line homes.
Flaming& Zaningcommission Petition 292-03 June 3,1993
Page 2
The petitioner is pmposhg a %foot right-of-way throughout the development, with a faur- foot sidewalk dong one side of the street. The right-of-way of the two entrances to the
will be 64 feet inwidth, with a landscape median. City Engineer David Getz
way AUocatiolns and hpm requires as= that the propmi 4-foot sidewalk will require City council approval. The petitioner has stated that a Moot sitimdkis more thanadequate fbr neighborhood pedemmncinxrlation and feds that there
will not be much congestion sjnce no COM~OIS are provided to Crystal Point or Frenchmen’s Creek.
aQ?s code of ordhnce andMinimum - Guidelines €61 Rigbt-of-
The development also indudes 17.94-acres of wetland preservation, 10Sacres of upland
presemtioq and 4k4kecs Q€ oak Hammock Aminimum!%-fmt Mer, except dong lots 4043, will be mm mfi 8I1ci west sides of the development adjacent to Frencbmen’s Creek. The mimmrlm l25-fmt upW preserve is
provided adjacent to Crystal Point, with the exce tion of lots 1 and 2 at the southeast comer
~f the site where a 1s-foot Mer is propose& L addition, a So-foOt lands~ape Mer will be provided on the north side of Flamiqgo Road. The planning and Zoning staff is
recommending that a 7 program be designed for Fhdngo Road, PartiCuIatly
along the south side of the
The ScboOlBogld ofPalmBeach cauntyhasreviewed the petitionand has requested tbat
the developer provide strategies within the PUD to assist in achieving !khool Board racial
balance goals. The school Board is requesting that the fohwing condition be placed as a condition of approvak
adjacent to Frenchman’s Landing.
“Prior to final City council action, the developer shall demonstrate that they have met with School Board staff and discusred the potential of enter@ into an
agreement to help achieve racial balance and allow the children who reade within
the development to attend the nearest available schools”.
On Friday, June 11,1993, the Development Review Cod- will meet to discuss this petition. Comments provided prior to this meeting will be presented at the June 8,1993
Planning and zoning Commission meeting.
II June 3,1993-
To:
FROM
Planning and Zoning Commission
Planning and Zoning Staff
MEETING June 8,1993
SUBJEC'R Workshop Meeting for Petition 2-92-03, by Timothy Hernandez, agent for
Pdte Homes, Contract Purchaser, to rezone a 80.13-acre site from the Palm
Beach County zoning designation of AR, Agricultural Residential to the City's
designation of PUD, Planned Unit Development and site plan approval for
the construction of 184 single-fmily detached and zero lot-line residential
homes. This site is located approximately 1,350 feet west of Prosperity Farms
Road, immediately west of Crystal Point residential subdivision. (294lS-43E)
in
The agent, Timothy Hernandez, is requesting to rezone a 80.13-acre site from Palm Beach
County Zoning designation of AR, Agricultural Residential to the City's designation of PUD,
Planned Unit Development and site plan approval for the construction of 184 single-family
detached and zero lot-line residential homes. Conditional Concurrency Reservation has
been granted for this development with the condition of a left-turn lane on the south
approach of Prosperity Farms Road at Flamingo Road. This site was also considered for a 135 single-family detached custom residential homes development (Starwood).
This vacant site is located approximately 1,350 feet west of Prosperity Farms Road and is
bounded to the north and west by Frenchmen's Creek Planned Community District; to the east by Crystal Point residential Planned Unit Development (RS/SE) in unincorporated Palm Beach County; and to the south by Frenchman's Landing residential Planned Unit
Development (RS/SE) in unincorporated Palm Beach County (see map).
The proposed development will contain 184 dwelling units comprised of 69 single-family detached homes and 115 zero lot-line homes. The Comprehensive Land Use designation for the subject site is RL, Residential Low, which allows 4 dwelling units per acre and up
to 5 dwelling units per acre through a Planned Unit Development. The proposed project
will have a gross density of 2.25 dwelling units per acre. The typical minimum lot size
proposed the single-family detached homes is 70 feet in width by 120 feet in depth and 50 feet in width by 120 feet in depth for the zero lot-line homes.
The development will be accessed from the extension of Flamingo Road west of Prosperity Farms Road. The site plan identifies a 123-foot ultimate right-of-way for the proposed
Flamingo Road. The petitioner has submitted a "Special Road Section" which calls for a
12O-fmt, 4-lane Rural Arterial (see road section). City Engineer David Getz recommends that prior to City Council ap roval of the PUD, the City should receive written approval
Special Road Section (see memo).
from Palm Beach County o P the 123-foot ultimate right-of-way as well as the 120-foot
- --1
Planning & Zoning Commission
Petition 292-03
June 3,1993
Page 2
U
The petitioner is proposing a 38-foot right-of-way throughout the development, with a four- foot sidewalk along one side of the street. The right-of-way of the two entrances to the
develo ment will be 64 feet in width, with a landscape median. City Engineer David Getz notes kt the city's Code of Ordinance and Minimum Engineering Guidelines for Right-of-
Way Allocations and Setbacks for PUDs requires a 5-foot sidewalk and that the proposed
4-foot sidewalk will require City Council approval. The petitioner has stated that a 4-foot
sidewalk is more than adequate for neighborhood pedestrian circulation and feels that there
will not be much congestion since no connections are provided to Crystal Point or
Frenchmen's Creek.
I -awe OE we&ls&prt5!mm€m *.- UJ. uya-d -44 . AminimumSO-foot
along lots 40-43, will be maintain- and west sides of the
development adjacent to Frenchmen's Creek. The minimum 125-foot upland preserve is
provided adjacent to Crystal Point, with the exception of lots 1 and 2 at the southeast comer
of the site where a 15-foot buffer is proposed. In addition, a SO-foot landscape buffer will
be provided on the north side of Flamingo Road. The Planning and Zoning staff is
recommending that a streetsca program be designed for Flamingo Road, particularly
along the south side of the roa 8" adjacent to Frenchman's Landing.
The School Board of Palm Beach County has reviewed the petition and has requested that
the developer provide strategies within the PUD to assist in achieving School Board racial
balance goals. The School Board is requesting that the following condition be placed as a condition of approval.
"Prior to final City Council action, the developer shall demonstrate that they have
met with School Board staff and discussed the potential of entering into an
agreement to help achieve racial balance and allow the children who reside within
the development to attend the nearest available schools".
On Friday, June 11, 1993, the Development Review Committee will meet to discuss this petition. Comments provided prior to this meeting will be presented at the June 8, 1993 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
J
0 MI!! Home Corporabon
Mr. Bristol Ellington, City Planner
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Mens. FL 33410
Re: The Sanctuary (MacArthur I. 1)
Dear Bristol:
Pulte Home Corporation is pIeased to submit its revised site plan for the Sanctuary. The new
site plan includes the following revisions:
1-
2
The limits of the jurisdictional line for wetIands agreed to by the Palm Beach County DERM, the U.S. Army Cow of Engineers and the south Florida Water Management District has been surveyed and shown on the plan.
A revised section for the Ramingo Road ROW is attached. This section has been
designed in accodance with the letter dated June 15,1993 to David Getz from Charles Walker, Jr., Director of the Trafic Division, Palm Beach County Department of
Ehgineering and public Works, a copy of which is attached.
3. . A revised ROW section for the onsite roadways is shown on sheet 1 of 3.
4.
5.
6.
A street tree program for Proqerity Farms Road is shown on sheet 1 of 3. Proposed
street trees are law1 oaks.
A preservation map overlay has been previously provided.
The area of the western buffer is now divided into natural buffer and upland cOmpOnentS
totalling 2.21 acces and 3.35 acres, respectively.
7. A wiXdlife corridor has been added between the central wetlarod preserve and the eastern
upland preserve despite the fact that the eastern upland preserve is already CoMeCtcd to
the northern upland pteserve.
8. An anti-monotony program defining the placement of simiIar models, elevations and color packages bas been added to sheet I of 3.
9. Pictures of existing homes have been taken and will be presented at the next PIanning
and Zoning Commission meeting.
1350 East Newport Center Drive, Suite 200, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442
(305) 426-6100 FAX (305) 428-9700
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Tile sampies have been obtained and will be presented at the next Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting.
The minimum building separation in the estate home section will be 15, with a minimum
sideyard of 5’ and total sideyard of 15’.
Additional landscaping is shown on sheet 1 of 3 where the rear lot lines abut side lot
lines of other lots. Reaxyard setbacks have been increased from 5’ to lo’ for both the
patio home and the estate home sections.
A maximum building height of 36’ for all homes is indicated on sheet 1 of 3.
The height of light poles is shown in the lighting detail sheet on page 2 of 3.
A minimum 4’ chain link fence is shown along the east property line north of the existing
crystal Pointe wall.
A tree inventory overlay is being provided under separate cover.
The radii and pavement width of the “T” turnaround have been increased to 30’ and 24’ respectively.
The lake area has been increased in size to 6.1 acres and the perimeter road alignment
has been adjusted slightly as discussed at the DRC meeting.
The scale on the tree preservation overlay now matches that on the master site plan. The
.47 acrt Oak Hamsnock Prcsave is now shown on the overlay.
We do plan to preserve trees on lots wherever practical. We are voluntarily meeting the
City’s new Iandscape guidelines and have revised our typical residential landscape plan
accordingly on sheet 3 of 3.
We have provided additional landscaping on both the estate and patio home lots.
”he plant lists on sheets 2 of 3 and 3 of 3 are now identical.
We have removed Black Olive, Eucalyptus and Queen Palms hm our plant @et.
We have added Bald Cypress trees around the lake.
The gopher tortoise management plan has been revised and resubmitted per Jim
SchnelIe’s comments.
A conservation easement for wetfands and upland areas wiIl be included in our HOA
docuxmnts. The provision suggested by Jim Schnelle will be included subject to the
approval of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineem, Palm Beach County DERM, the South Florida Water Management District and the FIorida Freshwater Fish and Game
Commission.
The preserve area management plan has been revised and resubmitted per Jim Schnelle’s
comments.
28. Street light locations are now shown as bold diamonds.
29. The Ftenchman's Creek bexm expansion now extends around the corner along our north property line.
30. Flamingo Road now extends to our west property line.
31. The zero side of lots 66 - 78 has been flipped.
We hope these revisions are satisfactory. Should you require any additional information, please
advise. We are planning on attending the July 13, 1993 Planning and Zoning Commission Meetiilg.
Thank you again for your time and assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Timothy L. He
Vice President - Land
cc: M. O'Brien (w/ plan)
S. Feldman
J. croft
J. Pasqde
L. Evans
G. Fagan
B. Bentz
S. Reeger
t *,, . I
E
Sec. 78-250. Preserve area requirements.
(a) required preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
. The minimum requirements listed below shall apply to all
.. a. I lug,
r, such as sand pine scrub, xeric oak
ye flatwoods, shall be set aside as a
preserve.
b. The city council shall designate the portion of significant lands which shall
be preserved.
c. Any decisions regarding the designation of preserve areas made by the
city council shall be based on a recommendation from the growth
management department.
d. The city council shall have the authority and flexibility to define the
preserve area boundaries or adjust the size of such%oundaries.
e. Any administrative decisions regarding the designation of required
preserve areas may be appealed in writing to the city council. The appeal
shall be made consistent with section 78-245.
f. Any preserve area modifications resulting from the permit approval
process involving other federal or state agencies with environmental
jurisdiction shall be reviewed and approved by the city council or department,
as applicable, prior to commencement of land alteration or construction.
dme%. Lands to be set aside in preserve .. (2) areas shall be identified and selected based upon the criteria listed below.
a. The quality of habitats, the presence of listed species, proximity to other
natural areas, and other related environmental factors.
c. €la&a&- pmwzh of taw, including conservation easements
pursuant to F.S. Section 704.06, or as otherwise approved by the city
council.
d. Of highest quality, capable of functioning within itself or in conjunction with
manmade features.
e. ;-. in such a way that it serves a
purpose, such as habitat protection, to the ecological and vegetative
communities adjacent to such area.
f.
school site, or other permanent open space, or combination thereof.
Contiguous, wherever possible, to an adjacent preserve, public park,
g. Maintained as large open or green areas with the intent of preserving
such areas to promote self-sustaining, balanced plant growth, biodiversity,
and wildlife enhancement.
h. Connected with other preserve areas to conceptually function as wildlife
corridors.
i. -LW
.. j. Compact in nature, -, and arranged
in a continuous fashion where possible. The use of long, narrow preservation
areas is discouraged.
k. Protecting and preserving of the following: all endangered and threatened
plant, animal, and marine populations. and the habitat of critical value to
regional populations of endangered and threatened species.
I.
regulations, including the following:
Consistent with applicable South Florida Water Management District
1. A minimum 15-foot upland buffer, composed of native vegetation,
shall be preserved or established around wetland areas landward from
the edge of the wetland in all places; and,
2. The upland buffer shall average 25 feet of width from the landward
edge of the wetland.
m. Removal of invasive nonnative vegetation, except phased removal as
otherwise authorized by the city council, at the time of development or
redevelopment of a site. Species to be removed include, but are not limited
to, such species as Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, and Melaleuca, and are
identified in section 78-31 8.
(3) lcffkrtftrtltm d-sbn atxi totat area.
.. a. m.... .. .
trees when a smaller size may be appropriate.
P, except for preserve areas for historic or specimen
b. The preferred minimum land area for preserve areas is ten acres, with the
exception of preserves on lots of less than 40 acres.
c. When potential preserve areas will be ten acres or less and cannot be
interconnected with other preserve areas which will result in a preserve area
of ten acres or more, the city council may consider an alternative form of
mitigation, as described in sections 78-250 and 78-316.
Conditions of approval. Any approved preservation plan, and accompanying
development order, shall, at a minimum, include the requirements listed
below.
a. The applicant shall identify, flag, and survey wetland areas to be impacted
for review by regulatory agencies and the department at the time of
environmental permit application.
b. The applicant shall file, as applicable, environmental permit applications
with USACOE, PBC DERM, DEP, and SFWMD. The applicant shall provide
findings, permits, or other official actions of such agencies to the department
for reference and review prior to approval of construction drawings or
commencement of land alteration, whichever occurs first.
c. When a development order application includes a golf course, the
applicant shall provide to the department, prior to approval of construction
drawings or commencement of land alteration, whichever occurs first, all
information listed below.
1. A management plan for golf course construction to ensure best
management practices are incorporated to eliminate the potential for
nutrient-laden runoff into the wetlands. Techniques may include
s p reade r-swale , inverted fa i ways, and similar imp rovemen ts .
2. Development POD, golf course and cart path topographic
elevations.
d. The applicant shall take extreme caution when filling in and around
preservation areas to ensure the protection of the root zone and canopy drip
line area. Changes in pH, topography, or drainage shall not occur which may
result in disturbance or destruction of the preserve area. Protection of
preserve and buffer areas shall be monitored by the applicant during all land
alteration and construction activities.
e. TI 9:
1. The protection of all listed plant and animal species; - L--t; and 3
3. To ensure that an adequate buffer is maintained around all
preserved wetlands. Written certification shall be provided by the
applicant's landscape architect or environmental consultant stating the
highest quality preserve areas, buffer areas, and all listed plant and
animal species have been maintained on-site within a functional
ecosystem. This certification shall be submitted prior to
commencement of land alteration or construction.
(1) Permitted alterations. Alteration within the preserve shall require department
approval, and shall be limited to alterations listed below.
a. The construction of 4amrdwaUks, pemws s, and other passive
recreational or educational facilities.
b. The construction of+Mweelm , fire lanes, or fence lines and the removal
of invasive nonnative species and their replacement with native species. *e B-vhlmF-- - +mtWF- g_
ca.
c. Unless otherwise approved by the city council, principal or primary public
or institutional buildings are prohibited in lands possessing a future land use
plan designation of conservation and within other environmentally sensitive
lands, including the following:
1. Wetlands;
2. 100-year flood plains;
3. Groundwater aquifer recharge areas; and
4. Areas set aside to meet the 25 percent preservation of native
ecological communities and native habitats as required by this
division.
(c) Densify bonus. Additional density. Any property possessing a future land use
designation of residential high (RH) may have densities permitted up to 15.0 units per
gross acre. The additional density allow is based on one additional unit per acre allowed
for every ten percent of native ecological habitat put into a preserve within a PCD, up to a
maximum of 15.0 units per gross acre. These preserve areas shall be over and above the
minimum preservation and open space areas provided in accordance with standard PCD
requirements and must be incorporated into the pedestrian and nature trailways system
described in the comprehensive plan.
(Ord. No. 17-2000, § 116, 7-20-00)
Sec. 78-251. Management plan.
(a) . A management plan for the preserve area or any other
conservation areas within the city shall be prepared by the property owner or entity
responsible for management of the area, as determined by the growth management
department. The management plan shall include but not be limited to the following items:
(2) Removal of and protection on a permanent basis from litter and debris;
. .. (3) r;
(4) species;
Ongoing eradication, removal, and monitoring of invasive nonnative plant
(6) Maintenance of h yd rolog ical requirements.
(b) Prescribed burning. Periodic prescribed burning or other mechanical methods that
would simulate the natural processes of the natural historic fire regime may be required by
the city or department for some preserve or conservation areas.
(c) Approval of management plans. Each management plan shall be approved, pursuant
to this division, by the growth management department before final approval of
construction drawings or commencement of land alteration, whichever occurs first. Each
management plan shall be approved by the city prior to incorporation of such plan as part
of a conservation area, open space, greenway, or wildlife corridor.
F- JmdS idern for preaewe stakre, 4oe$. shl I (1) ,-
bqqmwed by& &y athrney and pbd on he lands d recorded in the publk
-meads of tb-mwty. Alternatives to recording the deed restrictions include the
following:
..
a. Dedication of the preserve area to a public entity or private conservation
group approved by the city for the purposes of preservation,
b. Granting in perpetuity of appropriate restrictive Conservation easements
consistent with the requirements of F.S. Chapter 706; or
c. Adoption of such other similar protective measures may be established as
may be approved by city council, upon completion of all review processes.
(e) Single family dwellings. A conservation easement shall be established for a preserve
area on a single-family residential lot five acres or greater in size. The deed restriction or
conservation easement shall be dedicated to the city.
E
4
(1) State law. Utilization of F.S. Section 704.06, regarding the use of conservation
easements, provided a suitable means for maintenance and protection of such
areas is established.
(2) easement in perpetuity to and with acceptance by the city.
Dedication to the city. Dedication of the preserve area or a conservation
(3) Dedication to public agency. Dedication of the preserve area to a suitable public
agency, with approval of the city council.
(4) Density transfer. Utilization of the density transfer provisions in section 78-249
to allow retention of preserve areas in an undisturbed manner, provided suitable
means for maintenance and protection of such areas are established.
a Suebpwsem? area shall main undivided, and 8 tot unit owner or any
otb~mon strrsll not be able to bring any action for partition or division of.
swy+~& Mereof. €a&.k~t or unit owmr's undMed irttefest shall be
preemwd, pmkded, and maintained through recorded covenants running
with the'hd w a dewdoper's agmememt. Title d such area shall be
encumbekc3 %r'tti^e perpetual benefit of the public generally, and all future
use &atL bcmsistent with the intent and purpose of the preservatio-
b. A stated obligation on behalf of the association to pay for the cost of care
and maintenance of all preserve areas; and
c. A management plan, approved by the city, shall be incorporated into the
association documents prior to final approval of construction drawings or
commencement of land alteration, whichever occurs first.
(Ord. No. 17-2000, § 117, 7-20-00)
CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Goals, Obiectives and Policies
GOAL 6.1.: THE NATURAL RESOURCE OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
SHALL BE PRESERVED OR MANAGED IN A MANNER WHICH MAXIMIZES THEIR
PROTECTION, FUNCTIONS, AND VALUES.
Objective 6.1.1.: Air quality in the City shall continue to meet or exceed the minimum air
quality levels established by DEP.
Policy 6.1.1.1.: In accordance with section 163.3202, F.S., the City shall continue to maintain land
development regulations to provide for fuel-saving techniques such as promoting car-pooling, public
transit, bicycling, and walking. This shall be acheived through the implementation of the parkway
system, the installation of sidewalks for all new developments, the retrofit of neighborhoods with
sidewalks and the repair of existing sidewalks, and requirements such as provision ofbicycle racks.
Policy 6.1.1.2.: In an effort to reduce reliance on automobile travel, the City shall implement the
parkway system, as the vacant areas are developed; assist the Metropolitan Planning Organization in
the implementation of its Transit Study and Bicycle Facilities Plan; and coordinate with PalmTran to
increase the public transportation service in the City.
Policy 6.1.1.3: The City shall cooperate with county and state agency programs to reduce air
pollutants on a regional level.
Policy 6.1.1.4.: All proposed point sources of pollution shall present evidence of compliance with
the DEP regulations prior to being approved. No proposed point source of pollution shall be
approved which exceeds the level of air quality established by the State Implementation Plan.
Objective 6.1.2.: The City shall continue to maintain development regulations to manage surface
and sub-surface water resources in a manner which ensures their viability as natural habitats and
utility for recreational and potable water uses. Furthermore, the regulations shall protect the quality
and quantity of waters that flow into estuarine waters in the City.
Policy 6.1.2.1 .: The City shall continue to maintain drainage regulations to ensure best management
practices are required.
Policy 6.1.2.2.: The City shall continue to maintain land development regulations to ensure that:
a. Site plans for new development identify the location and extent of wetlands located on the
property;
CONSERVATION 6-1
.* .
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
Site plans provide measures to assure that normal flows and quality of water will be provided
to maintain wetlands after development;
Where alteration of wetlands is necessary in order to allow reasonable use of property, either
the restoration of disturbed wetlands will be provided or additional wetlands will be created
to mitigate any wetland destruction;
Land Alteration or development-within the proposed Loxahatchee Slough restoration area
(ecosite) or the adjacent lands within the Loxahatchee watershed are consistent with
SFWMD policies for water quality and quantity and SFWMD plans for modifLing the
hydroperiod and water levels in the area;
Proposed developments comply with the Wellfield Protection Program adopted by the
county; and
Site plans identify floodplain areas and incorporate appropriate flood mitigating measures
that comply with regulations promulgated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
Flood Insurance Program.
Policy 6.1.2.3.: The City shall require the review of all proposed wetlands development with the
Florida DEP, SFWMD, TCRPC, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to ensure compliance with
dredge and fill permitting processes.
Policy 6.1.2.4.: Through the continued implementation of land development regulations, the City
shall ensure that new developments are designed in such a manner as to minimize the impact of such
developments on the quality of surface and ground water resources, and to further ensure that new
developments do not exceed the capacity levels for potable water and/or sanitary sewer services.
Policy 6.1.2.5.: The City shall continue to encourage the placement of a salinity dam in the tidal
ditches along RCA Boulevard to prevent salt water intrusion into the shallow aquifer.
Policy 6.1.2.6.: The City shall continue to maintain land development regulations to ensure such
regulations are consistent with and implement the county Wellfield Protection Program.
Policy 6.1.2.7: By implementing the provisions of the county Wellfield Protection Ordinance, the
City shall continue to ensure that no new uses are established within the zones of influence of
existing or proposed wellfields that could adversely affect the quality of water resources in the water
recharge area. The City shall also ensure that new potable water wells and wellfields are located in
areas where no regulated materials (e.g. hazardous or toxic materials) are used, handled, stored or
produced within the projected zones of influence of such wells or wellfields.
Policy 6.1.2.8: The City shall cooperate with the SFWMD and Palm Beach County in their efforts
in restoring the Loxahatchee Slough and managing the Loxahatchee Slough Sanctuary. The City in
CONSERVATION 6-2
conjunction with the SFWMD and Palm Beach County, shall review any development adjacent to
the Sanctuary for possible adverse impact on the Sanctuary during the development approval process.
Objective 6.1.3.: The City, in conjunction with Seacoast Utility Authority, NPBCID, and the
SFWMD, shall continue to monitor and enforce provisions for monitoring and regulating water use
in order to prolong freshwater availability pursuant to land development regulations.
Policy 6.1.3.1.: The City shall provide technical assistance to and cooperate with the SFWMD in
preparing and adopting an emergency water management conservation plan.
Policy 6.1.3.2.: The City shall continue to maintain land development regulations which require
water conservation strategies which are consistent with programs promulgated by the Seacoast
Utility Authority, NPBCID, and SFWMD, and other viable programs such as:
a. Wastewater reuse for irrigation if economically feasible;
b. Separate metering for irrigation with potable water;
;. A reduction in use of potable water for irrigation; and
d. A more efficient operation of irrigation systems including the incorporation of such devices
as soil water tensiometers and xeric landscaping where appropriate.
Policy 6.1.3.3.: The City shall cooperate with the SFWMD in developing and implementing
programs for the further education of the public regarding various methods of water conservation at
the household and small business level.
Objective 6.1.4.: The City shall continue to maintain land development regulations to ensure the
control of soil erosion.
Policy 6.1.4.1 .: The City shall continue to maintain land development regulations which implement
Palm Beach County Soil and Water Conservation District guidelines on development activities and
land clearing.
Policy 6.1.4.2.: All commercial mining practices shall be prohibited throughout the incorporated
area of the City.
Objective 6.1.5.: The City shall continue to maintain land development regulations to ensure that all
ecological communities, wildlife, and marine life, especially endangered and rare species, are
identified, managed, and protected.
Policy 6.1.5.1.: The City’s land development regulations will continue to ensure that:
a. All endangered and threatened plant, animal and marine populations are protected;
CONSERVATION 6-3
b. Habitat of critical value to regional populations of endangered and threatened species is
preserved;
c. Nuisance and invasive exotic vegetation (Le. Brazilian Pepper and Melaleuca) is removed by
the developer at the time of development or redevelopment of a site; and
d. Removal of native vegetation is minimized in the land development process; and, where it is
economically feasible, removed material is relocated on site.
e Environmental Assessments are provided for any land development/alteration proposal or
properties containing environmentally sensitive lands.
Policy 6.1 52.: Development orders and permits for development and redevelopment activities shall
be issued only if the protection and conservation of wildlife, marine life and natural systems are
ensured consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of this Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 6.1.5.3.(a): The City shall continue to cooperate with the SFWMD, and Palm Beach County,
through the exchange of technical information and informal coordination, in order to make a
concerted effort to protect and conserve unique vegetative communities that exist in the Loxahatchee
Slough area and which fall under multiple local jurisdictions. Further, the City shall assist in the
Loxahatchee Slough ecosite’s protection by designating it with Conservation land use, and assisting
with management activities.
Policy 6.1.5.3.(b): The City shall cooperate with Palm Beach County in the management of the
Frenchman=s Forest ecosite. This cooperation shall include designating the ecosite as Conservation
land use, entering into an interlocal agreement to assume operational and public safety activities,
assisting in environmental education programs, and locating a city-operated nature center on the
property.
a. A habitat of critical value to regional populations of threatened and endangered species;
A rare and unique upland community such as coastal scrub;
:. Functioning and jurisdictional wetlands and deepwater habitats:
d. Any part of the Loxahatchee Slough Sanctuary;
e. Sites of historical or archaeological significance;
CONSERVATION 6-4
..
f.
g. Tropical hammock;
Xeric hammock or xeric scrub;
h. Low hammock, temperate hammock, or mesic hammock;
i.
j. Pond apple slough;
k. Cypress swamp;
1. Freshwater marsh;
Mixed hardwood swamp or hydric hammock;
m. Mangrove swamp;
1
Pine flatwoods, mesic and hydric;
p. Scrubby flatwoods;
q. Coastal dune and strand;
r. Wet prairie;
Policy 6.1.5.5.: The City shall require that an environmental assessment be prepared prior to
alteration of the land consistent with the provisions of the Natural Resources and Environmentally
Significant Lands section of the land development regulations.
Policy 6.1.5.6.: To ensure protection of environmentally sensitive areas and listed species, the City
shall implement the following criteria either in combination or singly for any proposed alteration of
lands designated as environmentally significant pursuant Comprehensive Plan policy 6.1.5.4:
1.
2.
The project design provides for the protection and preservation of the most valuable or
unique existing natural resources, listed species and environmentally significant lands on
site;
If no listed species have been determined to exist on the site or on-site preservation would
CONSERVATION 6-5
yield a preserve area that is less than the preferred minimum of ten acres or unavoidable
impacts to wetlands occur, an alternative form of mitigation acceptable to the City Council is
implemented;
3a. A minimum, 25% of upland native plant communities intact with canopy, understory and
groundcover (e.g. pine sand scrub, xeric oak forest, hardwood hammock, pine flatwoods) is
set aside as a preserve or;
3b.
4a.
4b.
5.
In cases of lots of less than 40 acres or where the quality of habitat on any size parcel does
not warrant preservation of upland habitat on-site, preservation of such habitat on-site is not
otherwise required by policy or ordinance, and upland habitat of equivalent type and area is
available elsewhere in the City, the developer shall preserve similar communities off-site,
provide monies for the acquisition of similar or better quality native plant communities, or
restore similar plant communities. Off-site preservation and restoration of communities may
be required at a greater ratio;
Wetland habitats are set-aside as preserves, and development is prohibited in wetlands except
under the following circumstances consistent with Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
Policy 6.6.1.1):
1) Such an activity is necessary to prevent or eliminate a public hazard;
2) Such an activity would provide direct public benefit which would exceed those lost as a
result of the modification;
3) Such an activity is proposed for habitats in which the functions and values currently
provided are significantly less than those typically associated with such habitats and cannot
be reasonably restored;
4) Due to the unique geometry of the site, it is the unavoidable consequence of development
for uses which are appropriate given site characteristics, or;
Wetlands shall be protected by a density transfer program to upland areas. Where
development occurs within wetlands, the developer must mitigate the function and value of
those wetlands. Development activities shall occur at a density of no more than one dwelling
unit per five acres in the urban area and one dwelling unit per twenty acres in the rural area,
shall be clustered to the least environmentally sensitive portion of the site and shall include
design considerations to protect the wetland hnctions of the rest of the site. Consistent with
SFWMD regulations, a minimum 15-foot upland buffer composed of native vegetation shall
be preserved or established around wetland areas.
For a site on which listed which listed species are known or suspected to be present, one of
CONSERVATION 6-6
the following criteria shall be satisfied:
1. It shall be successfhlly demonstrated that the proposed land alteratioddevelopment
activity will not preclude the continued survival and viability of those listed species located
on site; or
2. A plan for relocation, either on-site or off-site, for those listed species, shall be approved
by all appropriate agencies.
Policy 6.1.5.7: Publichstitutional buildings shall be prohibited in the Conservation land use
designation and within other environmentally sensitive lands, including wetlands, 1 00-year
floodplains, groundwater aquifer recharge areas, areas set aside by development to meet the 25
percent preservation of native ecological communities and wildlife habitats.
Objective 6.1.6.: By 1992, the City, in conjunction with the SWA, shall develop a hazardous
waste management program for the proper storage, recycling, collection and disposal of
hazardous wastes.
Policy 6.1.6.1.: The City shall work closely with and seek technical assistance from the DEP and
SWA in identifylng small quantity hazardous waste generators in the City and in developing the
program for the proper disposal of such hazardous waste.
Policy 6.1.6.2.: The City shall cooperate with the SWA in sponsoring Amnesty Days to collect
household hazardous waste for proper disposal.
Objective 6.1.7.: The City shall continue to maintain land development regulations and
development policies to ensure the provision of conservation measures on newly annexed
lands in accordance with the goals, objectives, and policies of this Comprehensive Plan.
s Policy 6.1.7.1.: The City shall review the master development plans of all subdivisions approved by
the county but later annexed by the City for the provision of conservation/ preservation areas as
required by the original development order.
Policy 6.1.7.2.: Where development orders granted by another governmental agency are silent, the
comprehensive plan, land development regulations, and policies of the City of Palm Beach Gardens
shall apply.
Objective 6.1.8.: Prior to the issuance of any development orders for that area included in the
Conceptual Linkage Plan presented in the Future Land Use Element of this Comprehensive
Plan, the plan for all or a part of the Parkway System shall be implemented by the City.
Policy 6.1.8.1.: The City shall continue to maintain land development regulations to ensure the
implementation and design of the Parkway System.
CONSERVATION 6-7
Policy 6.1.8.2.: The parkways shall be designed, developed and maintained to serve a multitude of
functions including:
a.
b.
/.
d.
e.
r.
h.
L.
Preservation of significant native ecological communities in greenways along the City's
major comdors;
Separate bicycle and pedestrian circulation through and between land uses within and
adjacent to the areas included within the Conceptual Linkage Plan presented in the Future
Land Use Element of this Comprehensive Plan;
Mitigation areas for natural areas disturbed elsewhere within the area included within the
Conceptual Linkage Plan presented in the Future Land Use Element of this Comprehensive
Plan, where applicable;
The buffering of adjacent roadways, land uses and developments, where applicable; and
The provision of public access to the restored Loxahatchee Slough, where applicable.
Preserve urban beauty through right of way landscaping requirements;
Provide residents with a safe and multi-use pathway system which is recognized as an urban
component of the Florida Greenways System;
Eliminate a perceived need for using strip commercial as a buffer between arterials and
residential areas; and
The phasing of the establishment of the pkkways shall, at a minimum, be relative to the
phasing of development in the area included within the Conceptual Linkage Plan presented in
the Future Land Use Element of this Comprehensive Plan.
Objective 6.1.9.: The City shall maintain land development regulations which, in conjunction
with the efforts of other regulatory agencies having jurisdiction, shall ensure the protection
and preservation of native habitats, and maximize the provision of open space for this purpose.
Policy 6.1.9.1.:
regulations with specific reference to conservation and preservation land area requirements.
The City shall maintain open space requirements in the land development
Policy 6.1.9.2.: The City shall endeavor to "collect and concentrate" open space conservation areas
to amass significantly large land areas that will be left in their natural settings for public dedication
and use through land development regulations.
Policy 6.1.9.3.: Through the site plan and subdivision review process, the City shall endeavor to
connect open space and conservatiodpreservation areas with the Parkway System wherever possible.
CONSERVATION ' 6-8
.'
Policy 6.1.9.4.: The City shall require all developers to identify all conservatiodpreservation areas
and submit all appropriate information to regulatory agencies.
a. Identified based on the quality of habitats, the presence of listed species, proximity to
other natural areas and other relevant factors.
d. Of highest quality, capable of hctioning within itself or in conjunction with
manmade features.
f -hs\ __ __siMe, to an adjacent preserve, public park, school site, or
human-made open space or combination thereof.
g. Maintained as large open or green areas with the intent of preserving large areas to
promote self-sustaining, balanced plant growth, biodiversity, and wildlife
enhancement and shall be connected with other preserve areas to conceptually
function as wildlife corridors.
L.
1.
j. of all endangered and threatened plant, animal and marine
populations and dmhdwkh ' of critical value to regional populations of endangered
and threatened species.
k. Consistent with South Florida Water Management District regulations, such that a
minimum 15-fOOt upland buffer composed of native vegetation shall be preserved or
established around wetland areas landward fiom the edge of the wetland in all places
CONSERVATION . 6-9
1.
and shall average 25 feet of width from the landward edge of the wetland.
Cleared of invasive nonnative vegetation (e.g., Brazilian pepper, Australian pine and
Melaleuca), except as otherwise authorized by the city, by the developer at the time
of development or redevelopment of a site.
Lands that are set aside in a preserve status may be included in open space calculations for
purposes of meeting open space requirements of the city’s planned community district or
planned unit development ordinances if the canopy, understory, and ground cover vegetation
are left intact. However, such preserved lands shall not make up more than 50 percent of the
total required open space, unless it is determined by the city council that a greater portion of
the required open space should consist of preserved area because of special site constraints
or preservation opportunities.
.. (2) within the preserve shall require City approval, and shhHdmaW &:
1
3.
The F 8~~.wdhap, and other passive
recreational or educational facilities.
The construction O-S, fire lanes, or fence lines and the removal of
invasive nonnative species and their replacement with native species. The use
of native plant communities, existing roads and trails, etc., as firebreaks is
preferred to
-fizmww
Primary public/institutional buildings shall be prohibited in the conservation
land use designation and within other environmentally sensitive lands,
including wetlands, 1 00-year floodplains, groundwater aquifer recharge areas,
areas set aside by the development to meet the 25-percent preservation of
native ecological communities and wildlife habitats, unless otherwise
approved by the city council.
Policy 6.1.9.6: The City shall maintain the following minimum requirements to require a
management plan for all preservation areas and/or conservation lands.
a) A management plan of the preserve area and/or any other conservation areas within the city
shall include but not be limited to long-term protection of the preservekonservation area, continued
removal of and protection from litter and debris, avoidance of activities or land alteration which may
disturb the preserve area, eradication and continued monitoring and removal of invasive nonnative
plant species, control of off-road vehicles, and maintenance of hydrological requirements. Periodic
prescribed burning or other mechanical methods that would simulate the natural processes of the
natural historic fire regime may be required for some areas.
b) Each management plan shall be approved, pursuant to Comprehensive Plan PoIIbLFiJ ad lmIU
CONSERVATION 6-1 0
.- 7 he dqrr€ment, before final approval of construction drawings or
commencement of land alteration, whichever occurs first, and/or incorporation into the city
as a conservation area, open space, greenway, or wildlife corridor.
(1) e lands identified for
dedicated to a public entity or approved private conservation group for the purposes
of preservation, or appropriate restrictive conservation easements granted in
perpetuity may be established, or such other similar protective measures may be
established, as determined by the city council, upon completion of all review
processes.
(2) A conservation easement shall be established for a preserve area on a single-family
residential lot five acres or greater in size. The deed restriction or conservation
easement shall be dedicated to the appropriate entity, such as the property owners
association, or a state or local government or agency.
Policy 6.1.9.7: The City shall provide for a voluntary density bonus program for land use
designations of residential high (RH) to permit densities up to 15.0 units per gross acre, based on one
additional unit of density allowed for every ten percent of native ecological habitat put into a
preserve within the planned community district (PCD) up to a maximum of 15.0 units per gross acre.
These preserve areas shall be over and above the minimum preservation and open space areas
provided in accordance with standard PCD requirements.
Policy 6.1.9.8: The City shall maintain in the land development regulations requiring the removal of
invasive nonnative species from preserve areas and development tracts.
CONSERVATION 6-11
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLI-
Request to Address City Council QII.4SI-JI’Dl(’IAId 1’ ~ N ~
Please Print RESO #
OPI)I\AN(’E ##
Members of the public may address the City Council during the “Comments by the Public”
portion of the agenda and during “Public Hearings”. This Request to Address the City
Council must be delivered to the City Clerk prior to the commencement of the meeting.
The time limit for each speaker is limited to three (3) minutes.
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Request to Ad ss City Council
Please Print
~
Members of the public may address the City Council during the “Comments by the Public”
portion of the agenda and during “Public Hearings”. This Request to Address the City
Council must be delivered to the City Clerk prior to the commencement of the meeting.
The time limit for each speaker is limited to three (3) minutes.
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Request to Address City Council VC~ASI-.J~I~)I(.IAL, \. __ N __
Members of the public may address the City Council during the “Comments by the Public”
portion of the agenda and during “Public Hearings”. This Request to Address the City
Council must be delivered to the City Clerk prior to the commencement of the meeting.
The time limit for each speaker is limited to three (3) minutes.
Please Print
Name:
RESO #
~KIMYANCE ## I
Address:
Subject :
b
Members of the public may address the City Council during the “Comments by the Public”
portion of the agenda and during “Public Hearings”. This Request to Address the City
Council must be delivered to the City Clerk prior to the commencement of the meeting.
The time limit for each speaker is limited to three (3) minutes.
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Request to Address City Council
- Please Print
Name: I.
Address: lql lAJod
City: l?!&hraed- LPr cA_c, 5 -3 3y/o
Subject: I
Members of the public may address the City Council during the “Comments by the Public”
portion of the agenda and during “Public Hearings”. This Request to Address the City
Council must be delivered to the City Clerk prior to the commencement of the meeting.
The time limit for each speaker is limited to three (3) minutes.
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Request to Address City Council
Members of the public may address the City Council during the “Comments by the Public”
portion of the agenda and during “Public Hearings”. This Request to Address the City
Council must be delivered to the City Clerk prior to the commencement of the meeting.
The time limit for each speaker is limited to three (3) minutes.
September 17, 2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivi si0 n
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
Signature:
Printed Name:
October 1. 2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
bear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely ,
Signature:
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARbENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary atxi I vi si0 3
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
Signature:
Address: /9 pH/dc6mZJv &-
October 1. 2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
Signature:
Printed Name:
Address:
September 17, 2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Stibdivisiofi
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
Signature:
4
I ’ * PLANNING
8h ZONING
DNlSlOr\;
BFM Stationery Page 1 of 1
Mark Hendrickson
From: Talal Benothman
Sent:
To: Mark Hendrickson
Subject: FW: PBG Preserve - Tract U-3; Sanctuary subdivision
Tuesday, October 05,2004 957 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Burns Financial Managrnent [mailto:carolbfm@belIsouth.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 9:46 AM
To: Talal Benothrnan
Subject: PBG Preserve - Tract U-3; Sanctuary subdivision
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the lake within
our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot wide mulched pathway
through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
I have heard some comments that the path would be visually displeasing. I have not had the
opportunity to attend the meetings but would like to offer a suggestion that perhaps the path be
curved through Tract U-3 such that it would not provide direct visibility to the lake and perhaps
would minimize the visual impact of the path.
Sincerely,
Carol H. Chesser
46 Princewood Lane
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
561 -625-4998
10/6/2004
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I sumt the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I su
wide mulched pathway through T F act U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
the appsval and construction of a 15-foot
Sincerely,
Signature:
n
Address: 00 ($ e-
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely ,
Signature: 2
Address:
September 17, 2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
SancTuary Subdivisicn
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
Signature: ,&-
Printed Name: -
Gerald Stiehler
52 Princewood Lane 1 Address: - Palm Beach Gardens * FL 33410-1493
Mark Hendrickson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Talal Benothman
Monday, October 04, 2004 12:46 PM
Mark Hendrickson
FW: The Sanctuary
----- Original Message-----
From: Debra A. Jenks [mailto:djenks@dobinjenks.com]
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 12:43 PM
To: Talal Benothman
Cc: Jeff Zane (E-mail)
Subject: The Sanctuary
I live at 58 Princewood Lane and am on the lake in the Sanctuary. I had initially signed
a letter in support of Mr. Gfesserls position based on his letter to the residents. I
have since come to learn that the creation of an easement to the lake is a necessity and
that no other place exists for the creation of such easement except for on the U-3 parcel.
Accordingly, I must support the action to create this easement. I would hope that such
easement will be created to cause a minimal amount of disruption to the lives of the
surrounding home owners, and will only be used for lake maintenance purposes.
Debra A. Jenks, Esq.
Dobin & Jenks, LLP
140 Intracoastal Pointe Drive, Suite 403
Jupiter, FL 33477
561-575-5880; fax 561-575-0032
"The law is some tricky business." Thelma Dickinson
1
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
S i ncere I y ,
Signature:
Printed Name:
Address:
Y
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sand gary Su bdi vi Zion
Dear Ladies and Gent lemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
Signature:
October 1, 2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
bear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
Signature:
Printed Name:
September 17, 2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely ,
,?
Signature:
Y
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARbENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
Signature:
4
September 17, 2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanct~ary Sub& vi sio II
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Address:
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely ,
Signature: I\
Printed Name:
I
October 1. 2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely ,
Signature:
Printed Name: \\JaL5 flu c 1
Address: A I cnm
PI &h Gw-&*
September 17, 2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-fOOt
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
Signature:
Printed Name:
Address:
September 17, 2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CIN OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely ,
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
,
Printed Name: 0, AA?*
October 1. 2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
Signature:
Address:
September 30,2004
Mi. T. Benothman, Planning Director
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Subject: The Sanctuary, zoning change
Dear Sir:
Enclosed is my signed letter in support of the requested zoning change required to insure
the healthy survival of the lake within our property at The Sanctuary. Our current
circumstance exists only because the city of Palm Beach Gardens, and Pulte
Development, jointly erred when the area was platted during development in 199411995.
Now we are being subjected to a ‘’tyranny of the minority”, through the actions of our
neighbor, Mr. Michael Gfesser; which is only delaying the inevitable “right thing” if the
lake is to survive, and which is costing the homeowners of The Sanctuary extensive and
unnecessary legal costs.
I urge you, and members of the City Council to do the right thing; and approve without
further delay this request to correct an error made ten years ago. If aeration of the lake is
not begun soon, it will become nothing more than a stagnant catchment area; which will
unfavorably affect all our property values.
Thank you for your prompt, and correct attention to this matter.
Yours very truly,
Charles Weeks
103 Princewood Lane
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 334 10
I
I
\
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely ,
Signature:
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuay Scbdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
Signature:
Address:
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GAROENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision.=p ort the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approva pr,c nd construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
Signature:
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, Fl. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-fOOt
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
Signature: 14,- 0
October 1. 2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
Printed Name: JAMES P. MURPHY
115 PRINCEWOOD LANE Address:
PALM BEACH GARDENS. FL 33410
PLEASE NOTE.
I HAD PREVIOUSLY SIGNED THE LETTER SENT OUT BY MR GFESSOR NOT KNOWING
THE TRUE FACTS. THEREFORE WHEN I AM SIGNING THIS LETTER I AM NEGATING
THE LETTER PREVIOUSLV, 1:)
v
/
t 1
/
5.1
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
Signature: L
Printed Name: &ILL d/4icssr\J
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanci.uary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely ,
Signature:
Printed Name: lj.&L&Lrl El. LA
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely ,
Address:
September 17, 2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely ,
Signature:
Printed Name: c,
Address:
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Suixli vision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
Y
$
Page 1 of 1
Mark Hendrickson
From: Talal Benothrnan
Sent:
To: Mark Hendrickson
Subject: FW: The Sanctuary in PBG-Please SAVE THE LAKE
Wednesday, October 06,2004 7:35 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: SuskauerLaw@aol.com [mailto:SuskauerLaw@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 2:53 PM
To: Talal Benothrnan
Subject: The Sanctuary in PBG-Please SAVE THE LAKE
I am Scott Suskauer. My wife,Michelle, and our 2 small children live in the Sanctuary. We strongly support the
approval and construction of the pathway thru Tract U-3. We live at 139 Oakwood Lane, PBG,33410. Please call
us at 626-5638 or 6877866 if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration.
10/6/2004
Y
September 17, 2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Si ncere I y ,
Signature:
Printed Name:
f!ddt.eSS
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely ,
Signature:
Printed Name: G.LQR \A C oRx:
Address:
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanc;-uary Su bd i vi si0 n
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Si ncere I y ,
Signature:
Printed Name:
Address: 1 r-7 L? HHWO09 L
c c+ 339%
V
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary §u bd i vi si0 n
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a I5-fOOt
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely, r\
\
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract lJ-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
Signature: \ \ '\
Address:
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Si ncere I y ,
Signature:
Address: /74 &-
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Su bdi vi si0 n
Oear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
@-Yp@Ld?lc ;-y
Signature:
Printed Name: %fmins
Page 1 of 1
Mark Hendrickson
From: Talal Benothman
Sent:
To: Mark Hendrickson
Subject: FW: The Sanctuary
Monday, October 04,2004 8:20 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Sory [mailto: bsory@adelphia.net]
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 851 PM
To: Talal Benothman
Subject: The Sanctuary
Dear Mr. Benothman ... l am writing to voice my opinion to the stand Mr. Michael Gfesser is taking in regard to
access to the lake in the center of our community, The Sanctuary. If we are unable to receive an access to the
lake for the purpose of adding electricity for aeration and chemicals three times a year, the lake will be a danger
to us all ... as it stands now, the fish have dies and the birds have left. I certainly feel that Mr. Gfesser is totally self
serving in his stand. He never, in his letter to the residents, mentions the lake problem. He is very deceptive in
his scare tactics. Please consider the opinions of the rest of us residents. We have alot to lose when our lake
begins to smell. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Barbara Sory, 181 Satinwood Lane, PBG,
3341 0.. .691-0194
10/6/2004
October 1. 2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely ,
Signature:
I
Printed Name: nr s
October 1, 2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
Signature:
Printed Name:
Address:
October 1. 2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
Signature:
Printed Name:
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely ,
Signature:
Printed Name:
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support th
lake within our community and I support the approval and
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to mc
Sincerely , n I
Signature:
Pr i nted Name:
need to maintain the
mtruction of a 15-foot
ntain the lake.
October 1, 2004
Palm Beach Counw City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Pafm Beach Gardens, Ft. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve .. Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I supgorf the approval and construction of a 15-fcot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 far QCC~SS to maintain the take.
Sincerely,
Signature: &A+
Y Printed Name' ---
September 17, 2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
Signature:
Printed Name:
Address:
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
lo500 North Military frail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
!
. -_
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - TMC~ U-3 .- sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and conshwction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely, 0-
Signature: '
L
-.
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
lo500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33420
!
. I.
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Soncttlary 5ubdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The %wtuaty subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within OUT community and I support the qqmval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through TMC~ U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
* Sincerely,
Signature:
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GA-RDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
!
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
.r Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision I support the need to maintain the lake within OUT community and I support the appro~l and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through TMC~ U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
0-
Signature:
Printed Name:
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GAROENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
!
. _.
Re: Palm f3each Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
r- Sanctuary Subdivision
bear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The sarrctwry subdivision. 1: support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the appmwl and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched paihway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the krke.
Sincerely,
a-
Signature: I
Address;
I.
r
October 1. 2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Si ncere I y ,
Si gnat we: Id
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council: \
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
BY:
ADDRESS: P43G Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
Y \- I I
ADDRESS:
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 30,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
-w \ ?&'e& u4-*e
ADDRESS:
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 30,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: / 3 /2; VCi+&?i'/ /I [+&-
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens. FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
BY:
ADDRESS: 14 PHlzce .ma G& I"1c
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 30,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: 23 fincC'475O3 cam
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
4
CWOF PBE
PLANNING
& ZONING
DlViSiON
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TFMCT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
BY:
ADDRESS: P~?Bea?G~d~~dO I h
,. Owu 04 04 ll:57a Michael M. Gfesser 561.776.3294
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is. in its natural state.
ADDRESS: -2d pucs-n LA A/&
Palm Beach Gardens. FL 33410
Andrew & Susan Paciocco
39 Princewood Lane
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
561-625-0898
December 15,2003
Mr. Mark Hendrickson
City Forester
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Proposed Amendment - The Sanctuary
Dear Mr. Hendrickson:
We write to you today to voice our opposition to the proposed amendment related to the
preserve area across the street from our residence located in the Sanctuary in Palm Beach
Gardens.
The preserve areas of our development as they exist today were a major part of our initial
attraction to establishing our home in our lovely community. It is our understanding that
the residents of the Sanctuary remain committed to maintaining the pristine natural
habitat surrounding our homes.
Surely, the City of Palm Beach Gardens required a provision in the original site plans
allowing for lake access. We adamantly oppose further exploitation of the preserve and
ask that the requirement of the original plans be enforced and fulfilled.
Thank you for your consideration of our thoughts and opinion as your access the merit of
the proposed amendment.
Sincerely,
6
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clewing of the Preserve Tract U3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
ADDRESS: /I// P&d@L
Palm Beach Ga rdens. FL 33410
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
n
ADDRESS: 42 6hh-d
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
E.i
L
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
1 am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
cleating of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destrpction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary. I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs of other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
BY:
//
sF33 0
ADDRESS:
]
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
ADDRESS:
Palm Beach G ardens. FL 3341 0
August 30,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to rep is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: &6z&dP~&U,), J L&b
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
1\
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
ADDRESS: /vlre /A0
Palm Beach Garden s. FL 33410
,
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal of destruction of trees, shrubs of other vegetation and
l-4
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
0 ,
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: (16 ?flfiW€:u3d@ &.
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
BY:
ADDRESS:
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
BY:
ADDRESS: iaa 5&ndood. c-
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: 131 s t 1 n#@
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
BY:
ADDRESS: )y8 d?!k&& kve
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: r(-3 0- L
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: 170 Sa-hnfiOOd c A -
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: 173 G-3 dc
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
THE SANCTUARY
REQUEST FOR 15 FT. WIDE LAKE ACCESS
TRACT
WHY DOES THE HOA NEED THIS LAKE ACCESS
TRACT?
1,
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
THE HOA IS OBLIGATED TO MAINTAIN THE LAKE AS
PART THE COMMON AREAS AND AS PART OF THE
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OF THE
SANTUARY.
THE HOA HAS NO RECORDED OR ACTUAL LEGAL
ACCCES TO THE LAKE FOR MAINTENANCE PURPOSES.
THIS IS THE ONLY HOA OWNED PROPERTY ALONG THE
LAKE.
WITHOUT MAINTENANCE, THIS LAKE WILL DIE AND WILL
CAUSE A VIOLATION OF THE SANCTUARY’S SFWMD
PERMIT; A VIOLATION OF THE HOA DOCUMENTS; AND A
VIOLATION OF THE CITY’S OWN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WITHOUT A VIABLE LAKE, THE PRESERVE ITSELF IS AT
RISK OF DYING.
WITHOUT A VIABLE LAKE, THE HOMES WITHIN THE
SANCTUARY AND ESPECIALLY THOSE AROUND THE
LAKE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED IN VALUE
AND MARKETABILITY.
ALL STREET DRAINS AND PRESERVES IN THE
SANCTUARY DRAIN INTO THE LAKE. THE LAKE IS
ESSENTIAL FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND TO THE
COMMUNITY IN GENERAL.
4.
5.
6.
7.
ON THE ORIGINAL APPROVED SITE PLAN AND THE
ORIGINAL RECORDED PLAT, THE SUBJECT PARCEL
TRACT WAS OWNED BY THE HOA AND AVAILABLE
FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE LAKE.
WAS SHOWN AS OPEN SPACE (TRACT 0-6), WHICH
IN 1996, PULTE WAS CITED BY THE CITY FOR
DUMPING DIRT ON A PRESERVE TRACT IN THE
NORTHWESTERN CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. (NOT
THIS PARCEL). AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE CITY FINED
PULTE AND REQUIRED THEM TO REPLAT THAT
PORTION OF THE PRESERVE TO OPEN SPACE AND
TO REPLAT THE OPEN SPACE TRACT (0-6) TO
PRESERVE (U-3).
THE STAFF REPORTS AND CITY COUNCIL
3 WERE ALL BASED ON THE APPROVED SITE PLAN
WHICH SHOWED THE 15 FOOT WIDE HOA OWNED
DRAINAGE TRACTS TO THE LAKE.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REPLAT OF 0-6 TO U-
THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE RECORD THAT
ANYONE WAS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE
OWNED ACCESS TO THE LAKE.
REPLAT OF 0-6 TO 0-3 ELIMINATED THE ONLY HOA
WHY CAN’T THE HOA ACCESS THE LAKE VIA
ANY OF THE FIVE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS
AROUND THE LAKE?
1. THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ARE ON PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALLY OWNED LOTS, NOT ON HOA
PROPERTY.
2. TO MAINTAIN THE LAKE, THE ACCESS MUST BE WIDE
ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE A TRUCK WITH A BOAT
TRAILOR FOR LAKE TREATMENT AND A BULLDOZER
FOR REPAIR OF BANK EROSION.
3.
4.
5.
THE EASEMENTS ARE ONLY 12 FEET WIDE AND NOT
WIDE ENOUGH FOR TRUCK OR BULLDOZER ACCESS,
ACORDING TO THE CITY’S ENGINEER.
THE EASEMENTS DO NOT PROVIDE CLEAR ACCESS IN
THAT THEY HAVE LANDSCAPING AND OTHER
IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THEM THAT WERE
PERMITTED BY THE CITY EG: METERS, POOL FENCES
ETC.
THE EASEMENTS ARE FOR DRAINAGE AND CONTAIN
SHALLOW, UNDERGROUND ALUMINUM CORRUGATED
TYPE PIPES WHICH CANNOT SUPPORT TRUCK OR
BULLDOZER TRAFFIC.
6. WE CANNOT INSTALL AN ELECTIC LINE IN THE
DRAINAGE EASEMENTS.
7. THE EASEMENTS ARE NOT LEVEL AND ARE TOO
STEEP FOR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.
8. ARTICLE 2.10 OF THE DECLARATION OF COVENANTS
“THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY TO PERFORM ITS
REQUIRED SERVICES, SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT
UNREASONABLY INTERFERE WITH THE USE OF ANY - LOT”. TRUCK AND BULLDOZER TRAFFIC ACROSS AN
OWNERS LOT WOULD UNREASONABLY INTERFERE
WITH THE USE OF THE LOT.
GIVES THE HOA A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT
9. ARTICLE 2.10 ALSO GIVES THE HOA A NON-
EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT OVER ALL UTILITY
EASEMENTS AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS TO UTILIZE
“FOR ALL PROPER PURPOSES”. BUT THE OWNERS OF
THE SUBJECT LOTS ARGUE THAT SUCH VEHICULAR
TRAFF~C ACROSS THEIR LOTS WOULD BE IMPROPER.
IO. ARTICLE 5.04 GRANTS THE HOA AN EASEMENT
OVER ALL COMMON PROPERTIES AND DRAINAGE
EASEMENTS FOR SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND
FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE
DRAINGE SYSTEM, “SUBJECT TO IMPROVEMENTS
CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE PROPERTY AS
PERMITTED BY CONTROLLING GOVERNMENTAL
AUTHORITY FROM TIME TO TIME.” THERE ARE
IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE
DRAINAGE EASEMENTS WHICH WERE PERMITT’ED
BY THE CITY.
11. IN 2000 THE HOA HIRED SINCLAIR ENGINEERS TO
INSPECT THE PROPERTY AND SEE IF ANY OF THE
DRAINAGE EASEMENTS WERE SUITABLE TO SUSTAIN
“VEHICULAR TRAFFIC”. SINCLAIR FOUND WATER
METERS, TELEPHONE CABLE BOXES, LANDSCAPING
AND FENCES IN THE EASEMENTS AND ALSO FOUND
THAT THE LAKE BANKS WERE TOO STEEP FOR
VEHICULAR ACCESS.
12. THE CITY’S OWN ENGINEER, SEAN DONAHUE, IN A MEMO
TO MARK HENDRICKSON STATED,
“BASED ON OUR REVIEW OF THE EXISTING AND PREVIOUS
PLATS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AS LISTED ABOVE, THERE
DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE AN EXISTING, DEDICATED ACCESS
EASEMENTS ARE PRESENT THROUGHOUT THE PLATS. THESE
EASEMENTS ARE DEDICATED FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES
ONLY AND NOT FOR LAKE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES.
AND DO NOT APPEAR TO PROVIDE CLEAR ACCESS TO THE
LAKE FOR LARGE EQUIPMENT SUCH AS TRACK HOES OR
GRADE ALLS THAT WOULD BE USED FOR LAKE
RECONSTRUCTION AND LARGE SCALE MAINTENANCE,
TYPICALLY. WE RECOMMEND EASEMENTS RANGING FROM 15
TO 20 FEET WIDE FOR THESE ACTIVITIES BASED ON THE
DEPTH OF THE PIPE AND OTHER FACTORS.
TO LAKE TRACT L. WHILE THE 12-FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE
FURTHER, THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ARE 12-FEET WIDE
“TRACT U-3 APPEARS TO BE THE MOST SUITABLE LOCATION
FOR THIS TRACT SINCE IT IS OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY A
SINGLE ENTITY (THE HOA). THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO
ENGINEERING CONCERNS WITH ALLOWING THE LAKE
MAINTENANCE ACCESS EASEMENT TO BE PLACED THROUGH
TM C T U-3. ”
WHY IS THE SUBJECT PARCEL (U-3) THE BEST
LOCATION FOR ACCESS TO THE LAKE?
1. IT IS NOT ONLY THE BEST LOCATION, IT IS THE
ONLY LOCATION AVAILABLE.
2. THERE ARE NO OTHER HOA OWNED TRACTS
ALONG THE LAKE.
3. U-3 IS COMMON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE HOA
AND THE HOA ALREADY HAS AN EASEMENT OVER
ALL COMMON PROPERTIES TO MAINTAIN THE
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.
4. U-3 WAS ORIGINALLY PLATTED IN 1994 AS OPEN
SPACE (0-6) AND AS SUCH THE HOA HAD A RIGHT
TO USE THAT AREA FOR MAINTENANCE ACCESS
TO THE LAKE.
5. THE REPLAT OF 0-6 TO U-3 MISTAKENLY
ELIMINATED THE ONLY OPEN SPACE TRACT
ALONG THE LAKE.
6. THEPROPOSEDACCESSTRACTISNOTNEEDED
TO SATISFY THE COMMUNITY’S UPLAND PRESERVE
REQUIREMENTS.
7. MINIMAL VEGETATION WILL BE REMOVED
CONSISTING PRIMARILY OF SAW PALMETTOS AND
3 SMALL PINE TREES. NO OAK TREES WILL BE
REMOVED.
0.
9.
IO.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PREPARED BY
C & N ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS CONFIRMS
THAT THERE ARE NO GOPHER TORTOISES OR ANY
PROTECTED SPECIES ON THE PROPERTY.
THE CITY’S OWN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT,
JAMES SCHNELLE SAID THAT THE SUBJECT “SITE
CONTAINS EXOTICS AND INVASIVE SPECIES” AND
NEEDS “BIOMASS REDUCTION”.
JAMES SCHNELLE ALSO SAID THAT THE LAKE
ACCESS PATH WILL BE A GOOD FIRE BREAK.
INSTALLING A 15 FOOT WIDE MULCH PATH
THROUGH U3 CONTRIBUTES TO THE
MANAGEMENT OF THE SITE.
THE COMMUNITY CONSISTS OF 184 HOMES, 35 OF
WHICH ARE ON THE LAKE. THE VAST MAJORITY
OF HOMEOWNERS SUPPORT THIS REQUEST.
THIS REQUEST COMPLIES WITH THE CITY’S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE
AND AS SUCH SHOULD BE APPROVED.
THE CITY’S LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
PERMITS PATHS THROUGH PRESERVES.
THIS REQUEST IS NOT OPPOSED BY THE SFWMD.
THE COMMUNITY’S ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS
PERMIT DOES NOT SHOW THIS PARCEL AS
JURISDICTIONAL.
THIS PARCEL WAS REPLATTED TO PRESERVE
AFTER THE SFWMD AND CORP PERMITS WERE
ISSUED.
18. BUT FOR THE REPLAT IN 1996, THIS PARCEL WOULD
STILL BE OPEN SPACE AND NOT A PRESERVE. THE
PROPERTY WAS NOT CLASSIFIED BY THE CITY AS
PRESERVE.
WAS THE REPLAT OF 0-6 TO U-3 VALID?
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
THERE ARE OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS REGARDING
THE LEGALITY OF THE REPLAT.
THEREPLATWASAPPROVEDBASEDONTHE
APPROVED SITE PLAN WHICH PROVIDES FOR 15
FOOT WIDE HOA OWNED DRAINAGE TRACTS TO
THE LAKE.
WITH THE REPLAT OF 0-6 TO U3, THE HOA’S ONLY
OPEN SPACE TRACT TO THE LAKE WAS
ELIMINATED.
THIS PARCEL WAS REQUIRED TO BE REPLATTED TO
PRESERVE AS A PUNISHMENT TO THE DEVELOPER
FOR ENCROACHING INTO THE PRESERVE TRACT ON
THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE RECORD FAILS TO SHOW ANY NOTICE TO THE
ADJACENT HOMEOWNERS OF THE PROPOSED
REPLAT IN 1996.
IF MR. GFESSERS ARGUMENTS ARE TRUE THAT THE
CITY CANNOT REPLAT A PRESERVE AND
TERMINATE THE RIGHTS OF OWNERS AFFILIATED
WITH THE PRESERVE, THEN THE CITY COULD NOT
HAVE REPLATTED THE PRESERVE ON THE WEST
SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO OPEN SPACE IN 1996.
7. IN ADDITION, THE CITY COULD NOT HAVE
REPLATTED THIS PROPERTY FROM AN OPEN SPACE
ELIMINATED THE HOA’S RIGHTS AFFILIATED WITH
THE OPEN SPACE IN 1996.
TRACT (0-6) TO PRESERVE TRACT (U-3) AND
IS THE CITY LEGALLY PROHIBITED FROM
APPROVING A REPLAT OF A PLATTED
PRESERVE?
1. IF MR. GFESSER’S ARGUMENTS ARE TRUE THAT THE
CITY CANNOT REPLAT A PRESERVE TO OPEN SPACE,
THE CITY FACES ENUMERABLE CHALLENGES FROM
OWNERS AND COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY
WHERE PLATS WERE MODIFIED.
2. THE CITY MAY, PURSUANT TO ITS POLICE POWERS,
PLAT AND REPLAT PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY.
3. THE IMPORTANCE OF PRESERVING AND MAINTAINING
THE LAKE FAR OUTWEIGHS ANY NEGATIVES OF
ALLOWING A LAKE MAINTENANCE TRACT THROUGH
THIS PRESERVE.
EXHIBITS
1 . APPROVED SITE PLAN APPROVED BY CITY.
2. SITE PLAN FROM DEVELOPER SALES BROCHURE.
3. RECORDED SANCTUARY PLAT N0.2.
4. SECTION 78-250 OF THE CITY CODE ALLOWING WALWAYS
IN PRESERVES.
5. MEMO FROM SEAN DONAHUE TO MARK HENDRICKSON
DATED MAY 7,2003 REGARDING PROPOSED ACCESS TRACT.
6. SECTIONS 2.10, 5.02, 5.04, AND 5.05 OF THE DECLARATION
OF COVENANTS FOR THE SANCTUARY.
7. SlNCLAlR ENGINEERING COMPANY REVIEW OF THE 12 FT
WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS DATED JULY 14,2000.
8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BY C&N ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS DATED FEBRUARY 9,2004.
9. LElTER FROM JAMES SCHNELLE TO MARK HENDRICKSON
REGARDING THE SUBJECT SITE DATED MAY 3,2004.
IO. PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF REPORT TO THE MAYOR
AND COUNCIL DATED OCTOBER 12,1995.
11. NOTICE OF VIOLATION FROM THE CITY TO PULTE DATED
DECEMBER 18,1995.
12. ORDER OF CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AGAINST PULTE
DATED FEBRUARY 6,1996.
13. LETTER FROM KIM GLAS TO ROBERT BENT2 DATED
FEBRUARY 8,1996.
14. MEMO TO SANCTUARY BOARD WITH COPIES OF
PROPOSALS FOR LAKE MAINTENANCE DATED AUGUST 4,
2000.
15. LETTER FROM SUPERIOR WATERWAY SERVICES, INC.
REGARDING LACK OF ACCESS TO THE LAKE DATED AUGUST
9,2004.
16. AFFIDAVIT FROM PRESIDENT OF THE HOA ATTESTING TO
THE CRUSHING OF THE DRAINAGE PIPE IN EASEMENT FROM
FRONT END LOADER DATED JULY 16,2004.
17. LETTER FROM C&N CONSULTANTS DATED AUGUST 18,
2004 STATING THAT THE PROPOSED ACCESS TRACT WILL
HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE PRESERVE AND WILL
ENHANCE IT.
18. CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF EVENTS OF PRESERVES
AND LAKE ACCESS DATED 6/25/04.
19. LETTER FROM SFWMD DATED JULY 26,2002 EXPRESSING
THE NEED TO MAINTAIN THE LAKE.
20. LETTER FROM THE SFWMD DATED JUNE 17,2003
OFFERING NO OBJECTION TO THE ACCESS TRACT.
21. EVALUATION OF SITES BY SlNCLAlR ENGINEERING DATED
AUGUST, 2004.
P
I
ib. ..a- * r' &
I
I
~i 'f ,
Page 1 of4 lMAGEOl : FL-02-1803-2 01/08/2002 01:34:32pm .,
- 8%' c b6
3
WGEQl : F602-1803-2 01/08/2002 01:34:32pm -
2of4
MAGEN1 : FL-02-1803-2 01/08/2002 01:34:32pm Pa - Bf4
c,
.L-
I I
I I
I
I
..
A
I I
A’ of 4
1 ! i h
@
C
w I I-
I
4
I
* .
$.7*al
.d ....
PALM BEACH (3- COBIE
CIVIL
AGRICULTURAL
WATER RESOURCES
WATER& WASTEWATBR
TRANSPORTATION
SURVEY & MAPPING
GIs
‘’Partners For Rcsultcl
Value By Design”
3550 S
(77% 286-3883
Far (772) 286-3925
www.Ibfh.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mark Hendrickson
FROM: Sean C. Donahue, P.E.@
DATE: May 7,2003
FEENO. 03-4293
J
SUBJECT: The Sanctuary PUD: Lake Maintenance Access Easement
We have reviewed the following information for the referenced project received on
April 29,2003:
0 Development Application
0 Sketch and Legal Description of Lake Maintenance Access Easement
prepared by Land Matters Associates
0 The Sanctuary Plat No. 1 as recorded in Plat Book 73, Pages 78 to 82 in the
public records of Palm Beach County.
0 The Sanctuary Plat No. 2 as recorded in Plat Book 73, Pages 83 to 86 in the
public records of Palm Beach County.
0 The Sanctuary-Replat of Tract “0-6” as recorded in Plat Book 77, Pages
117 to 1 18 in the public records of Palm Beach County.
It is our understanding that The Sanctuary PBG HOA, Inc. desires to replat Tract
“U-3” of The Sanctuary-Replat of Tract “0-6” plat to allow for the dedication of a
20-feet wide Lake Maintenance Access Easement through the tract. The HOA is
desirous of this easement to allow for the proper lake access for common lake and
lake bank maintenance activities as well as those required during periods of
emergency or duress (such as during or after a major storm event).
above, there does not appear to be an existing, dedicated access to Lake Tract L
While 12-foot wide drainage easements are present throughout the plats, these
easements are dedicated for drainage purposes only and not for lake maintenance
activities. Further, the drainage easements are 12-feet wide and do not appear to
vide clear access to the lake for large equipment such as track hoes or grade all8
used for lake reconstruction and large scale maintenance. Typically,
d easements ranging from 15 to 20 feet wide for these activities based
Based on our review of the existing and previous plats of the development as
depth of the pipe and other factors.
t U-3 appears to be the most suitable location for this tract since it is owned
maintained by a single entity (the HOA). Therefore, we have no enginwring
ems with allowing the Lake Maintenance Access Easement to be placed
through Tract U-3.
IrC
&1&S
The Sanctuary PUD
LBFH File No. 03-4293
Page 2 of 2
We have the following comments based on our review of the application and sketch
and legal description:
1. The sketch shows the tract as Tract 0-6, presumably an Open Space Tract. The
current plat of the land dedicates this area as an Upland Preserve. We
recommend providing a Lake Maintenance Access Tract along the same path as
the easement and keeping the Upland Preserve on each side of the Lake
Maintenance Access Tract. However, this option may quire a replat of Tract
u-3.
2. If the tract remains as an Upland Preserve, then the tract should continue to
exclude the 10-feet wide Utility Easement as shown on the existing The
Sanctuary-Replat of Tract "0-6" plat.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate
to contact me at (772) 219-2828.
SCDl
cc: Talal Benothman
Property subject to same or so as to cause any encroachments of
such easements upon any buildings or other Improvements wherever
said buildings or other Improvements may be located from time to
time. Any easement rights created by this Declaration, generally
or specifically, in favor of Declarant may be assigned by
Declarant, partially or otherwise, without the consent or joinder
of the Association or the Owners.
2.08 Services. Declarant hereby grants to courier or
delivery services , pick-up and fire protection services, police and
other authorities of the law, United States mail carriers,
representatives of electrical, telephone, cable television and
other utilities authorized by Declarant to service the Property,
and to such other persons as Declarant from time to time may designate, the non-exclusive, perpetual right of ingress and egress
over and across the Common Properties for the purposes of
performing their authorized services and investigation.
2.09 Lot Line Encroachments/Roof Overhang Easements. Certain
dwellings and other Improvements constructed on Lots may be
situated so that a portion thereof, including, without limitation,
any exterior wall of such dwelling, fences, driveways, roof
overhangs or gutters, may be located upon, immediately adjacent tor
overhang, or encroach upon the boundary line (as well as that:
portion of the adjoining Lot or Common Properties subject to such
encroachment) between the Lot upon which said dwelling is located
and either an adjoining Lot or a portion of the Common Properties.
In all such cases, said adjoining Lot or portion of the Common
Properties shall be subject to an easement and appurtenant rights, including the right of ingress and egress, storm water runoff and
drainage in favor of the encroaching Lot and its respective Owner, which easement and appurtenant right8 shall be for the purpose of
(a) permitting the existence of the encroachment including, but not
limited to, storm water runoff from the roofs, roof overhangs and
gutters and drainage for said runoff, and (b) allowing ingress and
egresa for the performance of proper and normal maintenance to the
encroaching Improvement, including meter reading. The easement
rights granted herein relating to roof overhangs are in addition to
the "3' 0 & M Easementst8 as shown on the respective Plats. All of such Improvements which have been constructed by Declarant and
approved by applicable building authorities are deemed to have been reasonably constructed, notwithstanding any such encroachment. In no instance shall the exercise of any such easement and appurtenant rights created pursuant to this Section 2.09 unreasonably interfere
with the use of the Lot subject to same.
2.10 Association. Non-exclusive easements are hereby granted in favor of the Association throughout the Property as may
reasonably be necessary for the Association to perform its services
required and authorized hereunder, so long as none shall
unreasonably interfere with the use of any Lot. Furthermore, an
easement is hereby granted in favor of the Association, including
L
9 I
Om 8559Ps 340 i its agents and designees, for purposes of carrying out dl
obligations and/or rights of the Association pursuant to the
Declaration, including but not limited to, the functions of the
Association contained in Article 5 hereof. Furthermore, a non-
exclusive easement is hereby created over all utility easements and
drainage easements located on any Lot, whether now existing or
hereafter created, including but not limited to all utility
easements and drainage easements contained on the Plats, which
easement is in favor of the Association, including'its agents and
designees, in perpetuity, to utilize for all proper purposes of the Association.
2.11 Execution. If and to the extent that the creation of
any future easements (exclusive or non-exclusive), deemed necessary
by Declarant for any purpose it deems appropriate in its sole
discretion, including but not limited to, access, ingress and
egress, emergency access, utilities, drainage, water and sewer,
gas, cable television and related uses, electric and telephone,
requires the joinder of any Owner(s), then Declarant may, by its
duly authorized officers, as the agent or the attorney-in-fact for
the Owners, execute, acknowledge and deliver such instruments
required to create such easements, so long as said easements do not
encroach upon any buildings. The easements may be created upon any
portion of the Property including but not limited to Lots and
Common Properties and shall be valid and effective whether created
before or after Declarant has conveyed title to any portion of the
Property BO affected and said easements shall not require the
joinder of any Owners, Mortgagees, the Association or any other
Patty holding an interest in the Property affected. The Owners, by the acceptance of deeds to their Lots, irrevocably nominate,
constitute and appoint Declarant, through its duly authorized
Officers, as their proper and legal agent or attorney-in-fact for
such purpose. This appointment is coupled with an interest and is therefore irrevocable. Any such instrument executed pursuant to
thie Article shall recite that it is made pursuant to Article 2 of
this Declaration.
2.12 Survival. Any and all easements, licensee, or other tights granted or reserved pursuant to this Article 2 shall survive any termination of this Declaration.
ARTICLE 3
MEMBERSHIP IN ASSOCIATION
3.01 Membership. Every Owner of a Lot, including Declarant, shall be a,Member of the Association (hereinafter referred to as
the "Membership"). Membership in the Association, except for Membership of Declarant, shall be appurtenant to and may not be
separated from the Lot. Except as to Declarant, ownership of a Lot shall be the sole qualification for Membership in the Association.
10
OHB a559 P? 342
the Secretary of the Association of a certificate in recordable
form, signed by Declarant and stating that Declarant elects to
terminate the Class B Membership.
4.02 Termination of Class B Membershie. Upon termination of
the Class €3 Membership, Declarant shall retain any voting rights it
may have as a Class A Member.
ARTICLE 5
FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION
5.01 Throuqh Board Action. The affairs and decisions of the
Association shall be conducted and made by the Board; the Members shall only have such power or rights of approval or consent as is
expressly specified herein, or in the Articles or Bylaws. In the absence of a specific requirement of approval by Members, the Board
may act on its own through its proper officers.
5.02 Required Services. In addition to those other
responsibilities specified in the Articles or Bylaws, the Auuociation, or its Management Company if applicable, shall be
required to provide the following services as and when deemed
necessary and appropriate by the Board and shall have easement
rights .necessary to perform same:
A. All painting and maintenance of the Common
Properties, and all Improvements thereon, as. and when deemed
necessary by 'the Board.
B. Maintenance and care for all landscaped areas within
the Common Properties, including Conservation Areas, Upland
Preserve Areas and Preserve Buffers, (excluding the swales within
Tract "A" as shown on both Plats and excluding those portions of Tract "L" and the Lake Maintenance Easements contained therein, as
shown on the Sanctuary Plat No. 2, lying adjacent and contiguous to Lot(s), all of which are the maintenance responsibility of the
Owner(s) pursuant to and more particularly described in Section
9.01 hereof) and maintenance of irrigation equipment wherever placed within the Common Properties to the extent irrigation facilities have been installed by Declarant. The Board shall be
entitled to determine, in its sole discretion and without notice to
any Owner, the time of day or night that various portions of the
Common Properties will be irrigated. Furthermore, the Association
shall perpetually maintain all landscaping and irrigation contained
within that Portion of the right-of-way for Flamingo Road beginning
at the westerly right-of-way line of Prosperity Farms Road and running West to a line which is southerly projection of the Western boundary of the Sanctuary Plat No. 1.
C. Maintenance of any and all streets, roads,
driveways, sidewalks, paths and entry features, including but not
12
‘4 om &55?Ps 344
D. Conducting recreation, sport, craft and cultural
programs of interest to Owners, including their families ,, tenants,
guests and fnvitees;
E. Protection and security, including, but not limited
to, the employment of stationary or patrolling security guards
within the Property and operation of a guardhouse;
F. Maintenance of electronic and other surveillance
devices, including security gates;
GI Installation, operation and maintenance of cable
television facilities, or other communication systems throughout
the Property;
H. Such other services as are authorized in the
Articles or Bylaws;
I. Cleanup, landscaping, maintenance, dredging, water
treatment or other care of canals, roads or other property (public
or private) adjacent to the Property to the extent such care would,
in the reasonable determination of the Board, be beneficial to the
Property and to the extent that the Association has been granted
the right to so care for the affected property by the owner thereof or other person authorized to grant such right, including, but not
limited to, any appropriate governmental authority;
J. Emergency repairs and other work on Lots reasonably
necessary for the proper maintenance and operation of the Project.
5.04 Surface Water Manaqement and Drainage. The surface
water management and drainage system for the Property is part of
one integrated system throughout the Project. An easement is hereby created over the Common Properties and over all drainage
easements throughout the Property whether now or hereafter
existing, in favor of the Association, including its agents or
other designees, for surface water drainage and for the
installation and maintenance of the surface water management and
drainage system for the Property; provided, however, that such
easement shall be subject to Improvements constructed within the Property a0 permitted by controlling governmental authority from time to time. The Association shall maintain the entire surface water management and drainage system within the Property including
any portion thereof owned but not maintained by the South Florida Water Management District. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Association will have the right but not the obligation, to maintain any Property which ia .owned and/or maintained by the South Florida
Water Management District or any other controlling governmental authority subject to the requirements of the South Florida Water
Management District. I
8
14
Ok6 &5S? Ps L. 745
5.05 CONSERVATION AREAS AND UPLAND PRESERVE AREAS.
a. CONSERVATION AREAS. PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ("SFWMD") AND U. S.
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER ( "CORPS") THE CONSERVATION AREAS, (AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT B-1 TO THIS DECLARATION) ARE HEREBY DEDICATED
TO THE ASSOCIATION AS COMMON PROPERTY (AS DEFINED IN SECTION 1.09
OF THIS DECLARATION) AND SHALL BE THE PERPETUAL MONITORING AND
MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSOCIATION WHICH SHALL MAINTAIN
SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SFWMD AND/OR CORPS FROM
TIME TO TIME, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: (1) THE REQUIREMENTS
AND RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN THE SFWMD PERMIT NO. 50-03293-S AND
THE MONITORING PLANS ATTACHED THERETO (A BRIEF SUMMARY OF SOME OF
THE ASSOCIATION RESPONSIBILITIES CONTAINED WITHIN THE SFWMD PERMIT
ARE ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "E")* (2) THE REQUIREMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN THE CORPS PERMIT NO. 199300688 TOGETHER WITH THE MONITORING PLAN CONTAINED THEREIN (A BRIEF SUMMARY OF SOME
OF THE ASSOCIATION RESPONSIBILITIES CONTAINED WITHIN THE FOREGOING
DOCUMENT IS ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT 'IF'') THE ASSOCIATION SHALL
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MONITORING PLANS CONTAINED IN THE CORPS
PERMIT AND THE SFWMD PERMIT, INCLUDING RETAINING ALL NECESSARY
CONSULTANTS AND ALL COSTS OF SAID MONITORING PLANS (INCLUDING
REPLACEMENT OF PLANTS). THE CONSERVATION AREAS MAY IN NO WAY BE
ALTERED FROM THEIR NATURAL STATE AS PRESCRIBED BY SFWMD AND/OR THE
CORPS. ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AREAS
INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: CONSTRUCTING OR PLACING OF
BUILDINGS ON OR ABOVE THE GROUND; DUMPING OR PLACING SOIL OR OTHER
SUBSTANCES INCLUDING TRASH OR OTHER DEBRIS; REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION
OF TREES, SHRUBS OR OTHER VEGETATION, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF EXOTIC
OR NUISANCE VEGETATION WHICH MAY BE REMOVED; AND ANY OTHER
OR PRESERVATION, ALL AS PRESCRIBED BY SFWMD AND/OR THE CORPS FROM
TIME TO TIME. THE INCORPORATION WITHIN THIS DECLARATION OF EXHIBIT "E" and 'tF" REFERRED TO ABOVE SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO CREATE ANY
ADDITIONAL OBLIGATIONS UPON DECLARANT WHICH ARE NOT ALREADY
REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SAID EXHIBIT ttE't and "Fit AND SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED TO EXPAND, EXTEND OR PERPETUATE ALL OR ANY OF DECLARAW'S
INSTALL ALL PERMANENT MARKERS/SIGNS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AREAS
NEAR THE EDGE CLOSEST TO LOTS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY SFWMD TO INFORM OWNERS OF THE CONSERVATION STATUS OF THE PROTECTED AREAS. AND THE ASSOCIATION SHALL HAVE THE PERPETUAL MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY OF
SAID MARKERS/BIONS INCLUDING THE RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN, REPAIR
AND REPLACE SAID MARKERS/SIGNS.
ACTIVITIES DETRIMENTAL TO DRAINAGE, FLOOD CONTROL, WATER
CONSERVATION EROSION CONTROL, AND/OR WILDLIFE, HABITAT CONSERVATION
OBLIaATIONS AS STATED THEREIN. THE DECLARANT WILL INITIALLY
bo UPLAND PRESERVE AREAS. PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS
("CITY") t THE FLORIDA GAME ANb AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION ( "FGFWFC") p GOVERNMENTAL OR QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY FROM TIME TO TIME, THE
UPLAND PRESERVE AREAS (AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "8-2" TO THIS
DECLARATION) ARE HEREBY DEDICATED TO THE ASSOCIATION AS COMMON
BE THE PERPETUAL MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
ASSOCIATION WHICH SHALL MAINTAIN SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROPERTY (AS DEFINED IN SECTION 1.09 OF THIS DECLARATION) AND SHALL
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY AND FGFWFC.
5.06 Actions by Association. Anything herein to the contrary
notwithstanding, no general funds of the Association shall be
utilized for bringing, BuppOttfng, investigating or otherwise
abetting any legal action, claim or extra-judicial action except
for (I) imposition, enforcement and collection of Assessments,
including lien rights, pursuant to Article 7 hereof, (ii)
collecting of debts owed to the Association, (iii) bringing any
contest or appeal of tax assessments relating to any property owned
by the Association, (iv) actions brought by the Association to
enforce the provisions of this Declaration, and (v) counterclaims
brought by the Association in proceedings instituted against it,
unless such legal action, claim or extra-judicial action shall be
specifically approved for such purposes by 75% of the total votes
of all Members of the Association in existence at any time. If the
Association's actions have been approved by the Members in
accordance with this Section 5.06, all expenses incurred shall be
deemed Common Expenses. In any action brought by or against the
Association, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs from the non-prevailing party.
This Section 5.06 may not be amended.
ARTICLE 6
COVENANT FOR ASSESSMENTS
6.01 Obligation for Assessments. Each Owner of any Lot, by acceptance of a deed therefor, whether or not it shall be SO
expressed in such deed, is deemed to covenant and agree, to pay to
the Association (1) annual Common Assessments for Common EXPBnSeS,
(2) Individual Assessments, and (3) Special ASSesSmentS,
hereinafter collectively described as the "Assessments. All
Aaeesements are to be imposed and collected a8 hereinafter
provided. The obligation of each Lot and Owners thereof for its
respective Assessments shall commence the day on which title to the Lot ia conveyed by Declarant to the first purchaser thereof and
shall be prorated from such date.
All Assessments, together with interest, costs, late charges
and reasonable attorneys fees for the collection thereof, shall be a charge on each Lot (except for Declarant-owned Lots) and shall be
a continuing -lien thereon .as more -particularly described in Article
7 hereof. Each Assessment, together with interest, costs, late
charges and reasonable attorneys' fees, shall also be the personal obligation of the Person who was the Owner of such Lot at the time when the Assessment fell due. Subject to the provisions of this
Dsclaration protecting Institutional Mortgages, the personal
16
July 14,2000
I
INTRODUCTION:
Sinclair Engineering Companyxceived your request on June 6, 2000 to insp
easements and related items at the above referenced property.
Spacifically, you requested that we determine which of the five 1 to sustain vehicle tramc. I
..
I
Ms. Karen Zink
The Be$ in Property Management
P.O. Box 30 154
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420
RE: Lake Access Easements - Sanctuary Home Owners Association, 2505
Flamingo Road, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
Dear Ms. zink:
Sinclair Engineering Company .completed its inspection of the above referenced lake access
easements on June 20,2000.
PROCEDURES:
1) Individual easements between homes tis indicated on the attached site sketch were
examined for evidence of capability to sustain traffic.
2) A report detailing our findings was prepared.
OBSERVATIONS:
I) The community can generally be described as a being comprised of single family homes
which were constructed around a lake.
There were five lake access easemcnts'plarted between the ULI~ indicated on rhe adjoining
sketch.
2)
F
. -5
Sanctuary HOA, Page 2
July 14,2000
OBSERVATIONS (Continued):
The access easement between Units 135 and 89 appeared to be relatively unobstructed with
the exception of the presence of the water meter for Unit 89 being approximately 2' to 3'
within the easement and plants on Residence-135 partly obstructed the casement. The lake
bank in this area would require re-pding to provide proper vehicular access. However, the
soils in the vicinity of the access appeared to be sfable.
The access easement between Units 139 and 140 was partially obstructed by the presence of
the water _-._I_- meters' for both units, as well as a telephone ..__ ~ -. cable box located at the front of the
residences. Further, there was a fence in the rear yard of Unit 139, which obstructed the
easement, as well as a tree in the rear yard of Unit 140, which further obstructed the
easement. Examination of the lake bank revealed that it was washed out in the area of this
easement. Specifically, the lake bank was steepIy pitched at the edge of the sod and would
need to be regraded for vehicular access to the'i&;. *
The access between Units 58 and 59 was completely obstructed with fences on both
properties. Further, there was a fence near the front of each residence as well as near the
rear of each residence, which had been constructed in the easement area. Examination of
the lake bank area adjacent to this easement indicated that sandbags had been installed in an
effort to s-it. Therefore regrading in this area would be required to provide proper
vehicle access to the lake.
Examination of the access easement between Unit 62 and 63 revealed the presence of
landscaping between the two buildings as well as fences which had been installed near the
rear of the buildings and at the rear property line of Building 63. The ground adjadcnt to the
lake was fhkly st and would require regrading of the lake bank and the yard areas to
provide access tdZl*e.
Examhation of the access easement between Units 68 and 69 revealed that heavy
landscaping had been placed between the two buildings in the easement area Shrubs had
grown in the easement blocking access to the lake.
CQNCLUSKONS:
Based on field observed conditions and related experience, the conclusions of this investigation arc
85 follows:
2) The lake bank: at all five access iocations would require regrading to provide proper vehicle
access to the lake.
2) There is considemble development iuithin four of:he five easements. SpecificaHy trees :md
or fences have been installed in the. easements with rhe exception of the easement heiween
Units 135 and 89.
. -.--
'I
a.
SanctJary HOA, Page 3
July 14,2000
CONCLUSIONS (continued):
3) The lake access easement between,Units 135 and 89 is the most suitable easemeat for
acccss to the lake.
CLOSURE:
Please accept my gratitude for selecting us for your engineering needs and feel fke to contact this
office for mer information as the need arises.
'
Stephen M. Sinclab, P..E.
FL Reg. Numbei 3563 1
Copy: File
Job: 00-06004
The Sanctuary
0.90-Acre Oak Hammock Preserve
Environmental Assessment
February 9,2004
Prepared for:
Sea Breeze Community Management Services, Inc
8259 N. Military Trail Ste 11
Palm Bch Gardens, FL 3 34 10
Prepared by:
C&N Environmental Consultants, Inc.
612 N. Orange Ave., Ste. A-10
Jupiter, FL 33458
THE SANCTUARY
0.90-AcRE OAK HAMMOCK PRESERVE
The Sanctuary Homeownera Association, Inc.
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Sanctuary Homeowners Association, Inc. has requested an environmental assessment' bc
conducted on a 0.9O-acre oak hammock preserve located within The Sanctuary P.U.D. residential
development. The parcel is located approximately 2 miles north of POA Boulevard and 0.5 mile
west of ProsperitY Farms Road on Heather Lane, Section 29, Township 41 South, Range 43 East,
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida (Figut 1, Site Location Map), (Figure 2, Site Map).
The oak hammock parcel was field surveyed to identirjl and inventory vegetation, soils,
endangered species and wildlife utilization, nesting and roosting areas, and habitat assessment on
November 26, 2003 and December 22, 2003 by a C&N Environmental Consultants, Inc.
professional biologist. An aerial .photograph (*Scale 1*':200*) of the parcel with property
boundaries and acreage clearly indicated was used to note tree locations and other data in the
field and is included within the report (Figure 3). The following written assessment complies
with Section 78-248. Review procedures for proposed land alterations, Land Development, City
of Palm Beach Gardens Code.
2.0 VEGETATION
Vegetation on the 0,9Olacre parcel was identified and inventoried in the field to provide a total
the
remaining canopy species on the parcel. Understory and groundcover strata were also
charactertzed for the purpose of mapping according to habitat and cover types using FIorlda
Land Use Cover and Forms Class!flcation &stem, (FLUCCS), Florida Department of
Transportation, January 1999, Level III (Figure 3). The following is a description of each
vegetative community including acreage which corresponds to the map.
enumeration of canopy species located within the field and to identify and characterize '
Plant communities were identified using blue line aerial interpretation and field truthing
methods. Random pedestrian transects were conducted throughout the subject parcel to delineate
vegetative communities and inventory the trees and understory vegetation. Each vegetative
community is described according to strata and plant dominance.
EWBWCNENVU003 JOBW03-093 Sea Braeza\Report\THE SANCTUARYrev.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FLUCCS 421 Xeric Oak 9.81 acraa
This forest community is dominated by scrub oak (Quercus geminata and Q. virginianu).
Cabbage palm (Sabalpalmetto) and slash pine (Pinus elliottii) also occurs in the canopy. Shrub
vegetation includes saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), beautyberry (CalZicarpa Americm), rusty
lyonia (Lyonia femginea), wax myrtle (Wica cerlfera), hd gallberry (flex gZubru).
Omundcover is sparse and dominated by wild grape (Vitis sp.). This community lacked
dcient management until recently which allowed the grape to overrun the understory limiting
the diversity of the groundcover. A list of native plants observed within the oak hammock is
included as Table 1. Exotic vegetation has recruited into this community and the inventory is
included in Table 2. Despite the occurrence of exotic vegetation, this community is healthy and
thriving.
M.09 acres FLUCCS 434 Pine Hardwood Hammock -
This small community occurs in the southeast corner of the preserve, Slightly mesic, a mixed
pine-hardwood canopy occurs in this community. Sand live oak (Quercus geminata), live oak (e. vfrginianu) slash pine, and cabbage palm occur in the canopy. The understory includes wild
coffee (Psychotria nervosa), saltbush (Baccharis spp. ), myrine (Rappanea punctata), sawgrass
(Cludium jumatcense), and gallberry. Very little groundcover occurs due to the dense stnrcture
of the understory and infestation by exotic vegetation and vines. Exotic vegetation include
shefflera (Sheflera actinophylla), swoflem (Nephrolepis cordrotia), and arrowhead vine
(Syngontum podophyllum). Wedellia ( Wedellfa trilobata) is the most significant infestation.
This community was disturbed during adjacent construction and is recovering. The edge effect
is evident in this community where adjacent St. Augustine grass and arrowhead vine are
encroaching into the preserve along the eastern boundary and pioneer weedy species also occur.
This community becomes more viable toward the center and western portion of the community
adjacent to the oak haxnmock.
3.0 SOflB
Soils on the parcel have been drained and altered due to surrounding development. Two soil
types underlie the preservation area (Figure 4). Anclote flue sand is a nearly level very poorly
drained soil found in small depressions and poorly defined drainageways. These soils are
historically hydric and underlie wetland forests. The water table is within 10 inches of the
surface for 6 months or more each year. Drainage has altered the hydrology on the parcel and
resulted in a mesic mixed pine hardwood hammock.
Immokalee fine sand is a nearly level, poorly drained deep, sandy soil that has a dark color
layer below a depth of 30 inches that is weakly cemented with organic matter. This soil occurs
in broad flatwoods area of eastern Palm Beach County. Under natural conditions, the water table
is within 10” of the surface for 2 to 4 months and within 40 inches for 8 months or more. This
soil pedon has been significantly drained and altered. Scrub oak, slash pine and saw palmetto
overlie this soil type.
1
4.0 ENDANGEWDAXIWATENED SPECIES
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDA), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) maintain lists of species slated for protection under Chapter 39, F.AC. and United
States Endangered Species Act of 1973. Prior to site survey, a literature search was Conducted to
determine listed species with a potential for occurrence on the subject parcel. Determination of
the probable geographic distribution of listed wildlife species and the probability of their
occurrence is used to identiQ the species. Wildlife species anticipated to occur in the subject
parcel include Florida mouse (Podomysfloridanus), gopher fkog (Rum ureolutu), and Eastern
indigo snake (Diymurchon corais couperi). Floral species anticipated to occur include large-
flowered rosemary (Conradinu grundjforu), Florida blazing star (Liatris ohlingerue), pineland
lily (Lilium cutesbuei), and tiny polygala (Polygala smallii).
No listed species were observed during the ecological survey conducted on the subject parcel.
' ~ue to the smme preserve, primarily avian species utilize the oak hammock as habitat.
Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileutus), downy woodpecker (Pfcoides pubescens), and red-
bellied woodpecker (Melunerpes curolfnus) are known to utilize the habitat within the subject
parcel. A red-bellied woodpecker and barred owl (Strfx vurtu) were observed in the oak
hammock. Passerine species including mourning dove (Zenatda mucrouru), mockingbird
(Mms polyglottos), and blue jay (C)unocittu cristata) were also observed. Oray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis) was also observed in the preserve.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The 0.90 acre oak hammock preserve is a viable community, which provides habitat for
numerous avian species including pileated woodpecker, downy woodpecker, red-bellied
woodpecker, barred owl, and other wildlife species.
. . -.
r --- I
:I
I
I' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
iI
1
TABLE 1
An Incomplete Inwntooy of Name Plants Observed within The Oak Hammock
Canopy tree8
PInus e/lbftil
Quercus v/g/n/ena
Sabel palmetto
Shrubs
Barnhatis spp.
CaNcatpa ttmeticena
Cladlum larnalcense
Ilex glebra
Lyonla Bnuginla
Mytica cerffem
Psychottie newma
Rapanee pundata
Serenoa repens
Wries
PenthenocIEsus quInqueWe
Smilax spp.
Vnls rvtunditb/la
South Florida slash pine
live oak
Babel palm
saltbush
beauty berry
gallberry
rusty lyonia
wax Myrtle
Mid coffee
mynlne
saw palmetto
8aWgrasS
Virginia creeper
gmnbrier
grape vine
TABLE 2
Invasive Exotics Obscured within the Oak Hammock
Florida Exotic Pest Plant Councils' 2003 List of Invasive Species
Category I
Acacia aurlcuiitbnnls
Asparsgus denshYotus
Cassia Coluteoides
Cupanlopsis anacerdioides
Nephdepis Con(lf0ia
Schemeta ectinophylla
Schinus terebinthifoius
Syngonium palophflllum
earleaf
asparagus fern
climbing cassla
carrotwood
sword fern
schefflera
Brazilian pepper
arrowhead vine
Catogory II
Epipmmnum plnnetum pothos
Wedela tn'o6ata wedella
Rhynchelyttum mpens Natal grass
Umna lobate Caesar's weed
Other lnvaahre Exotlc Pest Plants
Stenotaphnrm secundatum St. Augustine grass
Tmdescantla zebrine wandering-jew
\
FROM: .. FW NO. : 5616240482 May. 03 2684 BS:isAM Pi
Jamcs F. Schnclle, Jr., P.E.
Envirunmentd Managcrnent & Enginewing
8259 N. Military Trail, Suite 8
Palm Beach Gardens, FL33410
(561) 622-5549
Dr& - Sent via Facsimilc
May 3,2004
Mr. Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 Military Trail
Palm Beach oardens, FL 33410
Re: The Sanctuary 0.90 acre Oak Hammock Environmental Assessment.
Dear Mr. Hendrickson:
We reviewed the above rcfkrenced Assessment dated February 9,2004 prepared by C & N
Environmental and agrm with the data and findings as prcsented.
In addition, we conducted a cursory field inspcctian of the subject site on April 27,2004 and
noted the site contains cxotic and invasive species which we recommend be removed. Some
of the exotic species observed include acacia, carrotwood, scbtflerra, brazilan pepper,
arrowhead Vine, pothos, Caesar weed, creeping oxeye and wandering jcw.
We also propose you consider some minimal form of biomass reduction e.g. manual
trimming of saw palmettos with machetes to reduce the potential for a fire.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide Consultant services to you and stand ready to
assist you in any way we can.
To: The Mayor and City Council
FROM Planning and Zoning Staff
MEETING: October 19,1995
SUBJECT:
.
Petition WC -95-2L by Robert A Bentz of Land Design South, agent for
Pulte Home Corporation, to amend the Sanctuary Planned Unit Development
to add some berming along the western 50’ bufler area and delete the
requirement to save all native vegetation, approve a landscape plan for the
SO’ buffer area, and add a utility easement through the 50’ buffer in the
northwest corner of the project. The site is located north of Flamingo Road,
west of Prosperity Farms Road and west of the Crystal Point development
that is in the county. (2941s-43E)
Discussion
Robert Bentz, agent, is requesting to amend the Sanctuary Planned Unit Development,
approved on November 4, 1993 by Ordinance 22, 1993. The Sanctuary was approved for
184 single-family detached and zero lot-line residential homes. The petitioner is seeking
approval to install a berm and a utility easement within a previously approved SO’ wide
preservebuffer area that is located along their western and northern boundary. The
petitioner has submitted a proposed landscape plan for this area with this amendment. The
amount of open space has not changed, however the types proposed on the site data
language changes from “natural buffer” to %buffers”.
Attached is a reduced copy of the approved Site Plan for the Sanctuary PUD 50’ preserve
areabuffer for your review. In May of this year, the City was contacted by the Frenchman’s
Creek POA which was concerned about a proposed berm being constructed within the 50’
area next to Frenchman’s Creek’s eastern perimeter fence. In fact, by March of this year,
Pulte Homes had dumped 9,646 cubic yards of soil/muck/wood debris along portions of the
west and north sides of the Sanctuary project. The fill dirt still exists today spanning roughly
2,000 linear feet, running behind lots 58 through 81. The width of the dirt pile ranges from
25 to 50 feet and is generally 6 feet high.
The City began cooresponding with Pulte Homes representatives immediately, but given the
lack of response and corrective action by July 6, 1995 the City had no recourse but to issue
a &&g of Vi0 lation to the hlte Homes Corporation to correct the violation or amend the
Sanctuary PUD. Pulte’s site plan approval permited the removal of all prohibited plant species (Le. Brazilian pepper) while preserving the native trees and plants. This was
accomplished. Subsequently, the dumping that occurred without a permit immediately
started killing the protected Pine trees, which is a violation to the site plan and City codes.
This action is also in violation of the City‘s Natural Resourses and Environmentally
Significant Land Code, the South Florida Water Management District permit, US. Army
Corp of Engineers permit (refer to City Environmental Consultant Jim Schnelle August 16,
1995 letter), and the Sanctuary Plat No. 1 and 2. All requirements specifically prohibited
activities within this area including, but not limited to, construction, dumping or placing soils
or other substances or destruction of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation.
At the same time the above violations where occurring, Pulte Homes was negotiating with
Seacoast Utilities to gain an easement through the northwest corner of the SO’ buffer, under
Frenchman’s Creek’s landscaped buffer and Mareilles Drive in order, to tie into water
service (refer to Seacoast Utility Authority August 14, 1995 letter). This proposed
construction would be in direct conflict with all of the above cited regulations. It is staff’s
understanding that this utility work is necessary for the function of Phase I1 of the Sanctuary
development. To date, Pulte Homes have been allowed to continue building homes within
Phase I while this amendment is being processed.
Through staff’s review of this petition, we have tried to be sensitive to Frenchman’s Creek
POA’s issues, Pulte Home’s issues, Seacoast Utilities needs, the environment and the future
residents of the Sanctuary. The plans submitted for your review indicate the removal of the
existing fill-dirt north of the wetland preserve and other areas along the western boundary.
The height of any berm would not exceed 4’ above the nearest road elevation. In addition
to the normal landscaping of the buffer as orginally required, there is some mitigation of
the ten (10) large Pine trees that have died, but little compensation for the untotalled
vegetation buried and wetlands filled. The plans also indicate the utility easement needed
by Seacoast. The concept, other than allowing some berming, is to put the area back into
a natural state to connect the upland preserve to the wetland preserve. This concept
including the berm would, gver , screen the two adjacent communities as originally
planned.
’
A detailed analysis of the drainage, environment and wetland issues are not complete at this
time, however staff has enough information to bring this forward to seek direction from City
Council.
XBETINGt November 2, 1995
SWBJBCT: Petition B18C 0- 95 21, , by Robert A. Benta of Land Design South, agent for Pulte Xomes Corporation, to amend the
Sanatuary Planned Unit Development to add some bermiag
along the western 50' buffer area and delete the
requirement to save all native vegetation, approve a
land8oape plan for the 50' buffer area, and add a utility
easement through the 50' buffer in the northwest oorner
of the projeot. The site is located north of Flamingo
Road, west of Prosperity Farms Road, east and south of Branohman's Creek, and west of the Palm Beaoh County
development of Crystal Point. (29-418-43E)
Discussion
Robert Bentz, agent, is requesting to amend the Sanctuary Planned
Unit Development, approved on November 4, 1993 by Ordinance 22,
1993. The Sanctuary was approved for 184 single-family detached
and zero lot-line residential homes, The petitioner has changed
their request several times, and is now seeking approval to install
a berm and a utility easement within a previously approved 50' wide
preserve/buffer area that is located along their western and
northern boundary. The petitioner has submitted a proposed
landscape plan for this area with this amendment. The amount of
open space will not change, however the types of open space
proposed changes from @'natural buffer1@ to "buff erst@
Attached is a reduced copy of the approved Site Plan for the Sanctuary PUD 50' preserve area/buffer for your review. In May of
this year, the City was contacted by the Frenchman's Creek POA which was concerned about a berm being constructed within the 50'
buffer area next to Frenchman's Creek's eastern perimeter fence. Staff learned that this "berm@1 was the result of Pulte Homes having
dumped approximately 9,646 cubic yards of soil/muck/wood debris along portions of the west and north sides of its Sanctuary project. The "berm" of soil/muck/wood debris still exists and now spans roughly 2,000 linear feet, running behind lots 58 through 81
and the wetland preserve. The width of the @lberm@' ranges from 25
to 50 feet and is generally 6 feet high.
The dumping that occurred without a permit has apparently caused
protected Pine trees to expire such that the area no longer
funations as a natural preserve/buffer. The topography and
drainage has been altered and the existing native groundcover, shrubs, and understory has been cleared or killed.
The dumping that occurred is in conflict with the Sanctuary PUD,
City codes, and environmental permits. Specifically, this action
is in conflict with the City's Natural Resources and
Environmentally Significant Land Code, the South Florida Water
Management District permit, U. S. Army Corp of Engineers permit,
the Pulte Home Corporation Management Plan (refer to City
Environmental Consultant Jim Schnelle August 16, 1995 letter), and
the Sanctuary Plat No. 1 and 2. Specifically, prohibited activities within this area includes, but not limited to,
construction, dumping or placing soils or other substances or destruction of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation. The City began
correaponding with Pulte Homes representatives immediately,
however, as yet Pulte has not taken any corrective action. On July
6, 1995, the City issued a Notic e of Violatipn to Pulte Homes Corporation to correct the violations. This Notice also gave Pulte
the option to amend the Sanctuary PUD.
At approximately the time the above alleged violations was occurring, Pulte Homes was negotiating with Seacoast Utilities for
an easement through the northwest corner of the Sanctuary 50'
buffer, and jack and boring under Frenchman's Creek's landscaped
buffer and Marseilles Drive in order to tie-in to water service
(refer to Seacoast Utility Authority August 14, 1995 letter). The
plat language prohibits construction within the area proposed for the easement. It is staff's understanding that this utility work
is necessary for the function of Phase I1 of the Sanctuary
development.
The plans submitted for City Council's review indicate the
petitioner proposes to remove of the existing dirt piles north of
the wetland preserve and selected areas along the western boundary. The petitioner is proposing to reduce the height of the existing
dirt piles to not exceed 4' in height within upland areas 02 the
buffer. Excluding the berm proposal, the petitioner has submitted
a landscape plan that meets the original site plan native plant
establishment requirements. The petitioner proposes less mitigation for the loss of the ten (10) large Pine trees that have
died than required by City code. [It is possible most of the vegetation required for preservation will die as a result of the
current dumping because the roots and seed source have been buried, or from construction damage.] The plans also indicate the utility
easement needed by Seacoast. Pulte Homes Corporation's proposal
also requires a replat of both Sanctuary Plats.
Despite knowledge of the above-referenced violations since July 6,
1995, Pulte Homes has continued building homes while this amendment is being processed. Pursuant to Section 160.98 (D) of the City's Environmental code, in the event destruction of plant, wildlife, or
land herein protected shall occur after work has commenced on a
parcel of land prior to or after a building permit has been issued,
the Building Official may enjoin or terminate any work or activity on-site with such order remaining in effect until City Council or by a court of competent jurisdiction repeals the stop work order.
Attached is a letter from the Frenchman's Creek POA in opposition to the berm. Staff recommends denial of this amendment because it is not consistent with the original approval which was intended to
mitigate impacts created by Pulte's proposed development. Moreover, staff recommends that any proposed amendment to the
development specifically correct or mitigate the unauthorized
activities and destruction of environmental preserves.
Staff recommends the City Council direct the applicant to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Remove all fill from the preserve areas immediately;
Contact the appropriate agencies (i. e. SFWMD and ACOE) as to
their desires as to the wetland areas which have been filled
or damaged;
Install the originally approved drainage plan on these areas;
Return within 30 days with a revised landscape plan that
mitigatesthe native vegetation removed/killed/terminallyhurt
and re-establishes the native preserve consistent with the
original plan as possible.
Return within 30 days with a replat to designate an easement
for the proposed water line.
Staff will immediately:
1. Take the alleged violations to the next available Code
Enforcement Board meeting for action on the violations.
2. Withhold all building permits until items 1 through 5 above
are completed.
?ROH : Planning and Boning Staff
MEBTIbtO: Wovembor g8 1995
SUBJECT: Petition ..- 95 2& , by Robert A. Bents of Land Design South, agent for Pulte Home Corporation, to amend tho
Sancrtuary Planned Unit Development to add some berming
along th8 western 50' buffer area and delete the
requirement to save all native vegetation, approvo a ladsoape plan for the 50' buffer .rea, and add a utility
easement through the 50' buffer in the northwest oorner
of the projeot. The site is loaated north of Blaaningo
Road, west of Prosperity Farms Road, east and south of
Frenohman's Creek8 and west of the Palm Beaoh County
devolopment of Crystal Point. (29-4lS-43E)
Discussion
Robert Bentz, agent, is requesting to amend the Sanctuary Planned Unit Development, approved on November 4, 1993 by Ordinance 22,
1993. The Sanctuary was approved for 184 single-family detached and zero lot-line residential homes. The petitioner is seeking
approval to install a berm and a utility easement within a
previously approved 50' wide preserve/buffer area that is located along their western and northern boundary. The petitioner has submitted a proposed landscape plan for this area with this amendment. The amount of open space will not change, however the types of open space proposed changes from "natural buffer" to @@buffers@@ .
Attached is a reduced copy of the approved Site Plan for the Sanctuary PUD 50' preserve area/buffer for your review. In May of this year, the City was contacted by the Frenchman's Creek POA which was concerned about a berm being constructed within the 50' buffer area next to Frenchman's Creek's eastern perimeter fence. In fact, by March of this year, Pulte Homes had dumped 9,646 cubic yards of soil/muck/wood debris along portions of the west and north sides of the Sanctuary project. The dirt piles still exists today
spanning roughly 2,000 linear feet, running behind lots 58 through
81 and the wetland preserve. The width of the dirt piles ranges from 25 to 50 feet and is generally 6 feet high.
The dumping that occurred without a permit immediately Gtarted killing the protected Pine trees. Today, the area no longer functions as a natural preserve/buffer. The topography and drainage has been altered and the existing native groundcover, shrubs, and understory has been cleared.
The City began corresponding with Pulte Homes representatives
immediately, but given the lack of response and corrective action
by July 6, 1995 the City had no recourse but to issue a mtice of Violation to Pulte Homes Corporation to correct the violation or
amend the Sanctuary PUD.
The Sanctuary PUD site plan approval permitted the removal of all
prohibited plant species (i.e. Brazilian pepper) while preserving
the native trees and plants. The dumping that occurred is a
violation to the Sanctuary PUD and City codes. This action is in
violation of the City's Natural Resources and Environmentally
Significant Land Code, the South Florida Water Management District
permit, U. S. Army Corp of Engineers permit, the Pulte Home
Corporation Management Plan (refer to City Environmental Consultant
Jim Schnelle August 16, 1995 letter), and the Sanctuary Plat No. 1
and 2. All requirements specifically prohibited activities within
this area including, but not limited to, construction, dumping or
placing soils or other substances or destruction of trees, shrubs,
or other vegetation.
At the same time the above violations where occurring, Pulte Homes
were negotiating with Seacoast Utilities to gain an easement
through the northwest corner of the Sanctuary 50' buffer, and jack
and boring under Frenchman's Creek's landscaped buffer and
Marseilles Drive in order to tie-in to water service (refer to
Seacoast Utility Authority August 14, 1995 letter). This proposed
construction would be in direct conflict with the Plat language for
this area. It is staff's understanding that this utility work is
necessary for the function of Phase I1 of the Sanctuary
development. To date, Pulte Homes have been allowed to continue
building homes within Phase I while this amendment is being
processed.
The plans submitted for your review indicate the removal of the
existing dirt piles north of wetland preserve and other areas along
the western boundary. The petitioner is proposing to reduce the
height of the existing dirt piles to not exceed 4' in height within
upland areas of the buffer. In addition to the originally required
native vegetation plantings, there is some mitigation of the ten
(10) large Pine trees that have died due directly to the introduction of the dirt piles. The plans also indicate the utility easement needed by Seacoast. Pulte Homes Corporation ie aware that their proposal will also require a replat of both
Sanctuary Plats.
Pursuant to the City's Environmental code, in the event destruction
of plant, wildlife, or land herein protected shall occur after work
has commenced on a parcel of land prior to or after a building
permit has been issued, the Building Official shall have the right
and power to enter an order enjoining or terminating any work or activity on-site with such order remaining in effect until removed
by the City Council or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
In the event a violation of this code and/or order of the City
Council oannot be resolved entirely by imposition of fines, then the City Council may require the replacement of destroyed li~ted slpeciea on a three to one basis or; if a tree, three times the eame
caliper or DBH: and if same cannot be accomplished in whole, then
reimbursement to the City shall be made in money equivalent to the value of the listed species destroyed, Value shall be based on two
estimates at wholesale price by averaging same,
Attached is a letter from the Frenchman's Creek POA in opposition to the berm. Staff strongly disapproves of Pulte's unauthorized
actions to date. Staff recommends denial of this amendment, but
recommends that Pulte submit a landscape plan for City approval as
assurance that the original fifty-foot natural buffer design is
implemented before Phase Two of the Sanctuary commences.
?
I. '
9
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
loso0 N. MILITARY TRAIL PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410.4698
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
December 18,1995
Pulte Homes Corporation
33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway
Suite 200
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304
RE: Thesanctuary
Plat 1 and 2, Tracts U-1 and U-2 (k/a Upland Preserve Areas) & Tract W-2 (k/a Wetland
Preserve Area) & Tract W-2 (k/a Wetland Preserve Area); The Sanctuary Planned Unit
Development - Western and Northern Natural Areas
Dear Sirs:
This letter is a formal Notice of Violation of various City Codes. On April 7, April 10, July 1 1,
August 22, October 23, October 24, and November 29, 1995 inspections were conducted
concerning the above referenced property and the following violations of the City of Palm Beach
Gardens were fo,und:
Code Section: Section 32.3 1(A) of the Palm Beach Gardens Code. The Sanctuary Plats 1 and 2,
approved by Resolution 1 1 1 and 1 12, 1994. Violation of plat restrictions
regarding preserving land in its natural state, including all native vegetation; not
altering such areas from their natural state; dumping or placing soils or other
substances in preserve areas; and prohibiting actitivities within the conservation
areas.
Location: The Sanctuary's western and northern perimeters.
Compliance: Within thirty (30) days, all prohibited activities must cease and the subject areas
must be restored to their original natural state and native vegetation must be
replaced consistent with Plat 1 and Plat 2, the Development Order, Sections
153.67(B)(l), (2) and/or (3), and 160.98(C) of the Palm Beach Gardens Code.
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Page 2
The Sanctuary - Notice of Violation
Code Section: Section 32.3 1(A) of the Palm Beach Gardens Code. Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Development Order , approved by Ordinance 22, 1993. Violation of
Development Order, including conditions of approval and site plan requirements
regarding preserving land in its natural state, including all native vegetation.
Location: The Sanctuary’s western and northern perimeters.
Compliance: Within thirty (30) days, the subject areas must be restored to the natural state and
all protected trees and native vegetation shall be replaced consistent with the
Development Order, Sections 153.67(B)( l), (2) and/or (3), and Section 160.98(C).
Code Section: Sections 160.08(A)(3) & (3, 160.08B(2) & (5) & (8), 160.08C(l), 160.08(d)(4),
160.08E(2), 160.09(A), and 160.12(D) of the Palm Beach Gardens Code.
Violation of regulations regarding preservation of environmentally sensitive areas;
management, maintenance and protection of preserved areas, modifications of
preservation areas; protection from alteration during site construction; disturbance
of topography; protection of root zone and canopy drip line area; and
removal/destruction of native vegetation.
Location: The Sanctuary’s western and northern perimeters.
Compliance: Within thirty (30) days, acceptable topography must be restored, and native
vegetation must be replaced. Listed species and native vegetation shall be
replaced consistent with Section 160.98(C).
You are hereby notified that you have thirty (30) days from receipt of this Notice, to bring the
property into compliance. If the property is not brought into compliance within the time
specified herein; or if the violation recurs, you may be brought before the Code Enforcement
Board aomd kbtb&
The Board may impose fines of up to $250.00 a day per violation.
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Please contact me at 775-8295, if you have any questions on this matter.
Sincerely ,
The City of Palm Beach Gardens ,
Mark I. Hendrickson
City Forester
cc: Bobbie Herakovich, City Manager
Oreg Dunham, Assistant City Manager
Thomas J. Baird, City Attorney
Mike Maloney, Code Enforcement Supervisor
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
BEFORE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF THE CITY OF PALM DEACii GARDENS, FI,ORIDA
TO: Sanctuary PBG Homeowners Asuwiatjorl Case 36-8
1350 East Newport Center Drive
Suite 200 Deerfield Doadi, PI1 33442
RE: Violation of Seations 160.085(A,5), 160.08(B,?), 160.08(E,2), 160,09(A), .l60.12(D), of the Environmental Code.
The Code Enforcement Board has Il*:ill d I usIiriruiiy al: tlie C!C& @II~LII I:UIII~II~. noard hearing held February 5 and February 6, 1996, wil:h yirur representative l>eiug
present, and based on the evideiice tl~t! Code Errforcement. Board Etnt .AX the
following FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, and ORDER:
* FINDIEIT: OF PACT
1.
2,
3.
The property is located at the wesLerii aiid riorl.hern natural' amas c.d Lhc Sanctuary Planned Unit Develop ineiiL.
The property owners were notified oF llic violationo 1-111 I)eceI1iLer: 21, 1995. The violations were riot coLrccled.
E - cQg(&l.lE!c,g ':'!' /!A!J
1.
2.
The property owners have I>een fuiiiitl i1.i vilhtjuii of the alove-re€txenoad
' sections, The imposition of a $5000.00 fine for a violation af Sec!t.ion 1GO.OO(A,5), id an imposition oE a fins CIE S50On.00 for
totaling $10,000.00.
A fine of $250.00 for a violathi fJf sdjw 160.00(0,2), a $250.00 fiire fm a violation of aection 160.09(A), and a fine of $250.00 Em a violation of sectim
160.12(D), will be imposed per day if 1.11~ piclyertp 11as not been 1:~ouyht
into compliance withiii ten (IO) waelrs aft.w tlia approval by City Council of the Puke Homes Corporation rn:iLiyal. 1t.m wt~1~uuIIz)~i lline scliedulu.
vidathtl SI?(.!~~II 160,08(E,2),
3.
ORDEII
Pursuant to the authority granted in Cliaylur 32 of llic: Ci.ly of Palv nea~.:l~ Oardens Code of Ordinances, it is heKeby ORDERED and ADJUDGED this 6th day
of February, 1996, Pulte IIoinas Corporation is lu vii.)lalLw and a Elm iu assessed of $10,000.00. Further, if the property 1.1as iid III~~II III.~:III~M into coiuplitlncrr within 10 weeks after dlipiuvill IJY c!ity t.'tiiiiri!il 14 1111:- iitil igd hi t.vtihsl I tii*\hur I liiru schedule, a fine of $750.00 IJ~L' day will JJY ds:ii.:meil uiilil wiiiplitirict~
NOPE: It is the responsihil.fty of the VhJ~dl,ll t1-1 lidxy [.he Cdt: l31ifi1i i:f.rn!t!lif.
Division at 775-8242 when cuinplh'ice with I Itis ottltd ts acl.rievd1. Afh compliance yoti have tlic riglit. tt.) i*eqi,it*s:l ;iLBbi.kili ;IIIWJ l.tl!Ctj\.e Ili~.. Boai.iI In waive
or modify any fines which may have accxiiiulatetl. Siiali raqwst.d s1iall I)e niarle! in writing to the Coda Enfnrceiiie~rl Division. YIIII 11t1 II~AVI: 1-lie i.iglit. to appeal the action taken by the Board t.o the Cii.ci.iit. Cuui t \Jjt,.iiili 30 days CJE 1.1~ exroutkin
of this Order pursuaril t.o tltx.4ioi.r 162.1 1, Floi:ii.la BI.altit.ea.
'\ A
L
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
loso0 N. MILITARY TRAIL PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410-4698
February 8,1996
Robert Bentz
Land Design South
1280 North Congress Avenue
Suite 215
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Via Facsimile
RE: February 7th submittal package
Dear Mr. Bentz:
To summarize today’s telephone conversation, the Planning and Zoning staff needs for the site
data to be revised:
0 landscape, open space, maintenance and utility tracts do not meet the definition of
‘preserve’ and need to be removed from the ‘preserved land’ category and be added into
another category such as ‘open space’;
o the open space category which was removed needs to be added back;
o the ‘oak hammock preserve’ acreage is different than the approved site plan, this is not a
problem, but the City will be requiring this entire area to be reflected as ‘preserve’ on the
plat rather than ‘open space’;
0 certification requested in the City’s letter of January 3 1 st has not been received; please
provide a signed and sealed verification that the submitted project data is consistent with
what has been built on Pulte’s site
AS I had indicated, the mitigationlrestoration proposal will not be scheduled for the February
15th City Council meeting. Staff, however, will be updating the Council as to its status. If you
have any questions, please call me at 775-8295.
Sincerely,
Kim kCP G
Principal Planner cc: Greg Dunham, Asst. City Manager
MENOR ANDUM
80ard Mernben:
Please find ;Wed two contract5 for the lakc maintenance. please rm iew and we
imss and vae on them at the meeting, At this time the companies have stated that
hly maintenance is necessary.
The Lakc Doctars monthly amount is less, but they have a start-up fee which ofies
f3ackground: Lakc Doctom were previously SeFVicing the lake but had :o stop due m
zcess. Aquagenix currently takes care ofthe preserve areas.
The Partic!, hereto
A. lllE LAKE to manage certain lakes andlor waterways for 6 period of .-.&y&~-~ (12) monm
this Agwement in mmdanCe with me rems and conditions of this Agreement itl the
I
ad wRh THE: UNCnrARY, Palm Beach Gardens. FL.
B inspacliow anU mtmsms sa necerrrsr'y, for aontml and pfevantian I lf naxicious ~~luatic
6. CUSTOMER pay TH€ LAKE OOCTORS, its agents or rsrlgna, the fallowlnfi run for speM?d rqurtk:
and meting vegembn Control Proanm
!
v*
i I I
Born C i ST0ME.R and ALW agree to the following terms and conoitianc
!
Fomt3ins & Azratior,
Weed & A!gce Caflttol s
Notureii Area Mi?nagerncnt
F!sh Stocking
Wetland Piantirig
Water Testing
Ms. Beveriy Jamtlson
'The Sanctuary H.O..\.
8259 K. Military Trail, Suite 11
Palm Reach Chrdens, FL 33410
Dear his. Jamason,
As you are aware we still do not have a dedicated easemenl for access to the lake with
our equipment. this situation is innicing it difficult to maintain the watenvay to the
standards which tire expected from msnagcrnent and residents. There wi!I certainly be
problems in the future with aquatic weeds unless some scrt of access ilc granted.
Honicouners who live on the lake will certainly be affected aesthetically and financially
if the current situation continues. We would like to be able to service the lake properly
with our specialized equipment which we, specifically developed for aquatic applications
but currently only backpack treatments can be pravjdcd which are ldm inlensive and fict
a3 effective. Please let mc know your commenrs on this matte; at your earliest
convenience.
Respectful I y,
Christopher J. York
President
Sanctuary PBG HOA, Inc. P.O. Box 32932
Palm Beach Gdns., FL. 33420
561/626-0917 far; 626-7 1413
July 16, 2004
Re: Michael Gfessor vs. Sanctuary PBG HOA, Inc.
Lake Orainage Pipe
To Whom It May Concern:
Under oath I attest that, to the best of my knowledge, on or about the year 1997, a
drainage pipe located in between 58 & 59 Satinwood Lane was crushed when a front
end loader drove on the ground above the pipe. The pipe was then replaced by the
developer, Pulte, with another aluminumhorrugated type metal pipe. The pipe was SO
light that it would stay in the water, but kept lifting. Pulte used concrete sand bags
on and around the pipe to anchor it down.
We know all the other drainage pipes are also made of the same type of material and
therefore we feel that the pipes cannot withstand any type of load bearing
equipment.
john McGrath, President
The Sanctuary PBG HOA, Inc.
State of Florida County of Palm Beach
D before me this daf of sfxthw ~ , 2004, by as Presi ent of he anc ua GB HOA, Inc.
'.
I
,
Chronological Order of Events for Preserves and Lake Access
The Sanctuary PUD
6/25/04
The Sanctuary PUD approved by Ordinance 22,1993 on November 4,1993.
General Preserve Data:
Site - 82 Acres (10.25 ac. Requirement for 25% upland set-a-side);
Site Plan approved: Oak Hammock Preserve - 0.34 acres
Upland Preserve - 10.25 acres
Wetland Preserve - 17.94 acres
Natural Buffer - 2.21 acres
Total preserve acreage = 30.74 acres and
Two: 1 5-foot wide Drainage Tracts to the
20-foot wide lake maintenance easement
NOTE: Conceptual paving and drainage plan indicated drainage easements, which
is inconsistent with site plan’s proposed drainage tracts.
Sanctuary Plats approved by Resolution 11 1 and 112, 1994 on August 18, 1994.
General Preserve Data:
Plats approved: Oak Hammock area as open space tract 0-6. (not a preserve)
Upland Preserve - 14.89 acres (more than required)
Wetland Preserve - 19.73 acres (more than required)
Total preserve acreage = 34.62 acres and
Five: 12-foot wide drainage easements to the
20-foot wide lake maintenance easement
0 On July 6, 1995, City Forester cites Pulte Home for violating PUD and plat by
stockpiling fill dirt along portions of the western 50’ wide preservehuffer.
On August 4, 1995, Pulte Homes with agent Bob Bentz of Land Design South
filed for an amendment to their Sanctuary PUD requesting to change the western
50’ wide buffer to include a landscaped berm with Petition MISC-95-21.
Pulte Homes Corp. gives the City of Palm Beach Gardens Surety Bond of
$193,454 for preserve area restoration at the Sanctuary.
On December 18, 1995, the Notice of Violation was sent to Pulte Homes by City
Forester.
On February 5 and 6,1996, the City’s Code Enforcement Board heard Case# 96-8
and recommended the following:
A $5,000 fine for violation of Section 160.08(A)(5) and a $5,000 fine for
violation of Section 160.08(E)(2); and a fine of $250 for each of the
following violations, 160.08(B)(2), Section 160.09(A), and Section
160.012(12) for a total of $750 per day in the event that Pulte Homes
Corporation fails to comply with the attached buffer mitigation
construction schedule by April 18, 1996. (Chapter 160 was the
Environmental Code.)
0 On February 8, 1996, Principal planner Kim Glas’s letter to Bob Bentz
referencing the February 7, 1996 submittal package states “the oak hammock
preserve acreage is different than the approved site plan, this is not a problem, but
the City will be requiring this entire area to be reflected as a ‘preserve’ on the plat
rather than open space.”
0 The April 11, 1996 staff report for Petition MISC-95-21 for the April 18, 1996
City Council meeting states “To the benefit of the Sanctuary’s homeowners, the
platted acreage for the preserve status lands is greater than the original plans
figures estimated.. . . . .Regardless, acreage is being subtracted from areas the City
regarded and approved as preserve land ..... Staff feels there should be
compensation for the loss of preserve acreage in the proposed landscape tract,
utility and access easements.. . . . ..The proposed conditions should adequately
address these concerns.” Proposed Condition #I 2 requires the replat of Tract 0-6
of the Sanctuary No.2 plat to change it from open space to preserve status.
0 On April 18, 1996, City Council approved Resolution 66, 1996 amending the
Sanctuary PUD by adding a utility easement (Seacoast) and landscape tract to the
northwest corner (requiring a replat of upland preserve U-2 of Sanctuary Plat #2),
adding an easement (SFWMD) to access the northern wetland drainage structure,
and requesting approval for a mitigationhestoration plan for areas within upland
and wetland preserves along the western and northern sections of the project.
Condition # 2 is approved.
Site Plan approved by Resolution 66, 1996 included the following:
General Preserve Data:
Upland Preserve - 14.70 acres
Wetland Preserve - 19.38 acres
Total preserve acreage = 34.08 acres and
Two: 15-fOOt wide Drainage Tracts to the
20-foot wide lake maintenance easement
NOTE:
drainage tracts and drainage easements to the lake.
Amended Site Plan did not correct the inconsistencies between the
On July 18, 1996, City Council approved Resolution 105, 1996 for the Replat of
Tract “U-2” in the northwest corner of the Sanctuary. Acreage breakdown is as
follows: Tract “M’ - 0.35 acres (new SFWMD access tract to drainage structure)
Tract “0-7”- 0.12 acres (new Seacoast easement within open space tract)
Landscape Tract - 0.10 acres (encroachment into Frenchman’s Creek)
Total Area subtracted out of upland and wetIand preserves = 0.57 acres
On July 18, 1996, City Council approved Resolution 106, 1996 for the Replat of
Tract “0-6” known as the Oak preserve. This created Tract “U-3” within the
Sanctuary N0.2 Plat as an upland preserve 0.81 acres in size.
0 As platted and replatted, the Sanctuary PUD has currently:
General Preserve Data:
Oak Hammock as upland preserve tract U-3 - 0,8 1 acres
Upland Preserve - 14.67 acres
Wetland Preserve - 19.38 acres
Total preserve acreage = 34.05 acres and
Five: 12-foot wide drainage easements to the
20-foot wide lake maintenance easement
0 On March 17, 2003, the Sanctuary Homeowners Association (HOA) submitted
Petition PUD-03-02 to amend upland preserve Tract “U-3” (the Oak Preserve,
previously known as open space Tract “0-6”) to create Tract LA (lake access
tract) down the middle of Tract “U-3”, which would only subtract 0.07 acres
fiom the upland preserve acreage. This would bring the upland preserve total to
. 14.60 acres, which is 4.35 acres more than the City’s minimum 25%
requirement of 10.25 acres.
No preserve mitigation is proposed because the proposed lake access tract would
technically createhestore one of the two originally approved drainage tracts for
lake access that never were platted. The location is different because Tract “U-3”
is the only area that is owned by the HOA around the lake.
CON 24-05
Environmental Resource Regulation
Application No : 931 001 -6
July 26, 2002
Beverly Jam ason
SANCTUARY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
PO BOX 32932
Palm Beach Gardens FL 33420
Dear Ms. Jamason:
Subiect : RESPONSE TO INQUIRIES
THE SANCTUARY
Palm Beach County, S29,321T41 S/R43E
This letter is written in response to recent inquiries by members of the Sanctuary’s Board of
Directors requesting District staff‘s opinion about installing aeration pumps and/or wetland
vegetation along the lake’s shoreline.
It is well documented that fertilizers and pesticides used adjacent to surface water
management systems can have deleterious effects on the health and longevity of these
water bodies. During rain events, fertilizer and pesticide chemicals are transported into the
lake via the surface water runoff.
The Sanctuary’s on-site water management system is essentially a gravity system (Le., not
discharging unless the water level exceeds the control structure elevation). Your water
management system was designed and constructed to collect the first inch of runoff before
dischatying offsite. This means that all. rain events, less than one inch total, transport
chemical pollutants and accumulates them in the lake. Without aquatic plants to assist in
the assimilation and binding of these chemicals (particularly fertilizers), they become readily
available to other plants such as algae. Filamentous algae is very opportunistic and can
grow very fast. It can appear unsightly and create disagreeable odors as it senescences
and decays. Spraying for algae is only a temporary remedy, since the source of the
chemical input remains. Also, frequent spraying for algae control can contribute to the
accumulation of toxic chemicals in the lake sediments.
Some housing developments have installed aeration systems in their lakes in an attempt to
inhibit the growth of filamentous algae, as well as for ornamental purposes. Aeration
systems are purported to circulate the water through the water column encouraging the
chemical and biochemical breakdown of pollutants. The efficiency of aeration system
Beverly Jamason
SANCTUARY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
July 26,2002
Page 2
depends on the size of the pump and the volume of water being circulated.
The installation of aquatic plants can also benefit the health of a system by assimilating
nutrients and binding them in plant material. Aquatic plants also provide critical habitat for
fish fry and mosquitofish. This in turn decreases nuisance insects and attracts waterfowl
such as herons, egrets, ducks, etc. Although the planting of a small amount of aquatic
vegetation will not reap large benefits as far as nutrient uptake is concerned, we feel every
little bit helps. Finally, shoreline plantings do act to soften the edge between lake and yards.
Staff does feel that both the above noted measures would only help the overall health of the
Sanctuary surface water management system.
Should you have any questions or require further assistance, please contact me
at (561)-682-6947.
Sincerely,
Raymond-E. Miller, Jr., Sr. Environmental Analyst
Environmental Resource Compliance
c: lvette McGraw, ACOE, Jacksonville
Mark Hendrickson, City of Palm Beach Gardens
SOUTH FL~RIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
3301 Gun Cluh Rod, \Vest Ihltn Beach, Florida 33406 (561) 686-8800 FL WAE 1-800-432-2045 TDD (561) 697-2574
Mailing Address: PO. Bo\ 24680, West IJdtii Beach, FL 33416-4680 ~v~~,\rI..sfwiiid.fiov
CON 24-05
Environmental Resource Regulation
Application No : 931 001 -6
June 17,2003
Beverly Jamason
Sanctuary Homeowners Association, Inc.
PO BOX 32932
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420
Dear Ms. Jamason:
Subject : LAKE MAINTENANCE ACCESS
THE SANCTUARY
Palm Beach County, S29,32lT41S/R43E
At the request of the District's Environmental Resource Compliance staff, the District's
Office of Counsel (Real Estate Division) conducted a complete review of the following
information submitted by Mr. Michael Gfasser, PA regarding Tract U-3 (fka 0-6).
1. Conservation Easement in favor of District recorded in ORB 961 8, page 11 10
2. Sanctuary Plat No. 1; PB 73, page 78
3. Sanctuary Plat No. 2; PB 73, page 83
4. Sanctuary Replat of Tract U-2; PB 77, page 11 9
5. Sanctuary Replat of Tract 0-6; PB 77, page 117
Based on this information, it is our Office of Counsel's opinion that the District did not
acquire a Conservation Easement interest of record with respect to:
Tract U-3, according to The Sanctuary - Replat of Tract "0-6", Plat Book 77 at page 117
[being a replat of a portion of Tract "0-6" of the Sanctuavy Plat No. 2, PB 73, page 831.
As such, the District can offer no objection to the proposed maintenance easement through
Tract 0-6. However, we do recommend that the width of clearing for maintenance access
be minimized to protect the structural integrity of the preserve.
Finally, we apologize for any inconvenience that our letter dated May 20, 2003, may have
caused regarding this subject.
Beverly Jamason
Sanctuary Homeowners Association, Inc.
June 17,2003
Page 2
Should you have any questions or require further assistance, please contact me
at (561)682-6947.
Raymond E. Miller, Jr., Paw.!%, C.E.P., Sr. Environmental Analyst
Environmental Resource Compliance
c: lvette McGraw, ACOE, Jacksonville
Mark Hendrickson, City of Palm Beach Gardens
Christine Tatum, City of Palm Beach Gardens
Charles Wu, City of Palm Beach Gardens
Michael Gfesser, PA
cj t c
Engineering Compaqy
August 26,2004
MS. Beverly Jamasan
Sea Breeze Camunity Management ScIyiaw, Inc.
8259 North Military Trail, Suite 11
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
Re: The Sanctuary H.O.A., 2505 Flamingo Road, Palm Bench Garden I, PL
Dear M8. Jmwn:
Sinclair Ensinwring Company performed an onsite evaluation of the presa ve avea and
drainage casmcnts on July 27,2004.
INTRODUCTION:
Sinclair Engineering C!ompany received pur requeut on July 20, 2004, to inspect ths
picame mea and drainage easements in an effort to determine whether a pi oper access
could be provided to thle lake. You fkther requested for us to comment on tt e feadbility
of using the preserve area to gain access to the lake for maintenance, if the c)lher accts3
easements were occluded.
PROCEDURES:
1) The canmunity wag briefly examined. Specificdly, fke diainqgi:
tascmcats were mamined to determine the extent of buildout v ithin them
2) "he preserve ma was mamined to evaluate the feasibility of using it fi~
access tcl the lake.
OIBSERVATIOINS AlrlD CONCLUSIONS:
1) The Carmunity is generally comprised of single famil;r detached
rtsidmws, many of which surround a drainage lake that is loc d:ed centra.
centrally within the community.
8259 N. Military Trail, Suite 6 Palm Beach Oardens, Florida 3341 8 . (561) 630-5488 Fax: (56 I) li30-4570
OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS (con'@:
2) I)roJlrargs easements, which me located bctween howcs twmd B.I lake,
vmm observed to have been built into with landsaping matdal, fences
an& water mcttrs. That is, there was no feasible awes to the lake tl rough
aqy of the easemen& without removal of landscaping material, itncea,
mam end regrading the land,
Exlrminatlon of the presme area rcvded that could generally bc described BS an upland hammook with substantial saw palmetto emwth.
Due to the width of the pmuve area, however, it did appear fewble to
mate a pathway to access the lake which would be dnimallv jnvrg 011
the preserve area and would only require removal of saw pal melt^^ mi
and minor rsgxaainS to provide a level pathway.
Tho most Ewonable access to the lake wns located on the muth side of thc
pmme area whare the lake bank is the shallowest. Specificnlly, thc
shallow slope of the lake bauk in this area would provide best accw s for H
born trailer.
3)
4)
CLOSURE:
Thank you fot sekxtiw Sinolair Engindng for your engineering needs. Please feel h.cl:
to contact thls OfAca for Mer idormation as the need arises.
copy: FileW?O21
8259 N. Military 'hit, Suite 6 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33418 (561) 630-5488 Fax: I 561) 630-4570
EXHIBIT 4. VIEW OP LAKE BANK, SOUTH AREA OF PIREUERVE
8259 N. Military Trail, Suite 6 Palm Beach Oardms, Florida 33418 (561) 630-5488 Fax: (56 I} 630-4570
Ms. Beverly Jamason
August 24,2004
Page 3
The Sanctuary H.O.A.
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
EXHIBIT 1. VIEW OF PRESERVE AREA FROM ROADWAY
EXHIBIT 2. ALTERNATE VIEW OF PRESERVE AREA
8259 N. Military Trail, Suite 6 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33418 (561) 630-5488 Fax: (561) 630-4570
Ms. Beverly Jamason
August 24,2004
Page 4
The Sanctuary H.O.A.
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
EXHIBIT 3. VIEW OF LAKE BANK, NORTH AREA OF PRESERVE
EXHIBIT 4. VIEW OF LAKE BANK, SOUTH AREA OF PRESERVE
8259 N. Military Trail, Suite 6 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33418 (561) 630-5488 Fax: (561) 630-4570
41 REASONS TO DENY
Ordinance 35,2004 And Resolution 176,2004
SANCTUARY LAKE ACCESS TRACT
THE PBG CITY CODE FORBIDS DIVISION OF A PRESERVE BY ANY PERSON.
PRESERVE TRACT U-3 MUST REMAIN PRESERVED AND PROTECTED.
Sec. 78-251 Management plan
(5) a. "Such preserve area shall remain undivided, and a lot unit owner or any other person
shall not be able to brinq any action for partition or division of any Dart thereof. Each lot or
unit owner's undivided interest shall be preserved, protected, and maintained through
recorded covenants running with the land or a developer's agreement. Title of such area
shall be encumbered for the perpetual benefit of the public generally, and all future use
shall be consistent with the intent and purpose of the preservation of open space, as
provided in the city's comprehensive plan and herein."
DO NOT APPROVE AN UNPAVED ROAD THROUGH A PRESERVE AREA.
THE REQUESTED ACTION VIOLATES AT LEAST 20 SECTIONS OF THE PBG CODE
AND AT LEAST 8 POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN.
I
PRESERVE TRACT U-3 IS SOLID SAW PALMETTOS, TREES AND OTHER
VEGETATION; NO ACCESS EXISTS THROUGH THE PRESERVE.
-1-
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 1 of 3i
I
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely ,
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely ,
Address:
September 17,2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely ,
Signature:
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
September 20,2004
City Council Members
City Of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Sanctuary Preserve Area Tract U-3
Dear City Council:
For 4 years I have been fighting to keep mall pre le intact a m ndat d by the City
Code and City Comp Plan. Allof my arguments are written and mandated by the City
Code and Comp Plan.
1. UPHOLD THE LAND RESTRICTION: The Platted Land Restriction imposed by the
City of Palm Beach Gardens in 1996 as mitigation for the destruction of preserve lands
by the Developer states:
“THIS CONSERVATION AREA MAY IN NO WAY BE ALTERED FROM ITS NATURAL STATE.
ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AREA INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED
TO, CONSTRUCTION OR PLACING OF BUILDINGS ON OR ABOVE THE GROUND; DUMPING OR
PLACING SOIL OR OTHER SUBSTANCES SUCH AS TRASH; REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF
VEGETATION REMOVAL; ANY OTHER ACTIVITIES DETRIMENTAL TO DRAINAGE, FLOOD
CONTROL, WATER CONSERVATION, EROSION CONTROL, OR FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
CONSERVATION OR PRESERVATION.”
TREES; SHRUBS OR OTHER VEGETATION- WITH THE EXCEPTION OF EXOTlClNUlSANCE
2. UPHOLD THE CITY CODE: There is no City Code or Comp Plan Policy which
allows the removal of a Preserve from “Preserve Status”. In fact the opposite is true.
Section 78-251 of the City Code does not allow any action for any partition of a
Preserve. A Preserve must remain “preserved, protected and maintained”. The
proposed PUD Amendment is in direct contradiction with:
Sec. 78-251 Management plan
(5) a. “Such preserve area shall remain undivided, and a lot unit owner or any other person
not be able to bring any action for partition or division of any part thereof. Each lot or unit owner’s
undivided interest shall be preserved, protected, and maintained through recorded covenants
running with the land or a developer’s agreement. Title of such area shall be encumbered for the
perpetual benefit of the public generally, and all future use shall be consistent with the intent and
purpose of the preservation of open space, as provided in the city’s comprehensive plan and
he rein .”
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.1331
Fax 561.776.9294
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
I
City Council Members
September 21 , 2004
Page 2
3. UPHOLD THE CITY CODE: The PUD Amendment which removes a portion of
Preserve Tract U-3 from Preserve status violates at least 15 Sections of the City Code
which mandates that preserves be unaltered and undivided.
4. UPHOLD THE COMP PLAN: The PUD Amendment which removes a portion of
Preserve Tract U-3 from Preserve status violates at least 8 Policies of the Comp Plan
which mandates that preserves be unaltered and undivided.
On September 28, 2004 you will be asked to approve a PUD Amendment to the
Sanctuary Subdivision. The Amendment removes a portion of Preserve Tract U-3 from
preserve status so that a 15 foot wide unpaved road can be constructed in the
Preserve. The question to you is whether City Council will remove a portion of Preserve
Tract and approve a road in a preserve area. Not only is Preserve Tract U-3 to be
maintained in its natural state, but the cutting of trees, shrubs and other vegetation is
prohibited by the City mandated Plat, the City Code and the City Comp Plan.
The City Staff can not justify its actions. Please review the City Staff Recommendation.
The City Staff stretches to justify its actions and winds up stating that there is “excess
preserve lands” in the community and that the action “is consistent with the overall
intent of the goals, objectives and policies”. Good, but does that justify violating 23
Sections of the City Code and Comp Plan?
I prepared the enclosed binder to provide you with the “rest of the story.” Please review
it as it provides at least 41 reasons to deny the PUD Amendment. You will note that
access already exists to the Lake so the PUD Amendment is not needed.
Look at the attached letter from Mr. Hendrickson. In 1999 he affirmed the access to the
Lake and stated “An access for lake maintenance is out of the question”.
Sincerelv.
\
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.1331
Fax 561.776.9294
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500N. MIrnARY TRAn PALM BEACH GARDENS FumlDA3341-
July 6,1999
Ms. Beverley Jamason
The Best in Property Management
P.O. Box 30154
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420
Re: ThesanctUaryPUD-AccesktoLake
Dear Ms. Jamason:
I recently visited the Sanctuary community to review the proposed trail through the upland
preserve next to the lake that Advanced Aquatics had partially flagged. ARer reviewing your
January 29,1999 fbimde, field conditions and the approved Sanctuary PUD plans, I can
undtxstad your Me maintenan cedilemma.
Tlmeare fipe (5) drainage easements znuum?thelake. The easements are 12'wide so that heavy
~awlperscrmref cau gain acccss to aU. ~~cs, inchding the lake. Normally,
certainlandsc@hgandf~ are allowed measemenis because they canberemovedand
maintenance access, I would suggest working with the all property owners to resolve this issue.
~~oropenedinemerg~cies. Ifobstructionsoccurinanyeaseanentthatpreventsgd
In the field, I also noticed that some pperty owpers are iastalling landscaping within the 20'
widelakesmhtmme easement. The City parmitted the developer to install clusters of Cypress
trees around the lake, but EUX'RSS around the lake remained unobstructed. I would caution the
Association about dowing property omas to lands~ape offtheir Propeayfor the same reasons
aSIdiscussed above.
I have enclosed a copy of the Tract 21-3" upland preserve (formerly Tract "0-6") language. The
language does not prohibit nature trails, but otherwise is very restrictive. An access for lake
equipiner is out of the question. The City also has concerns about the potential
=use by children and landscape maintenan ce crews, unless a raised five-fmt wide
boardwallc with rails can be built to direct all pedestrian trafEc fiom the sidewalk to the lake
maintenance easement The City feels a boardwalk would be user fiiendy for all ages, and would
befheenvironmentallycorrect~to~ersethisarea, IftheAsmaatl 'onisinterestedin the boardwalk concept, the rednaining location of the trail should be flagged, and 8tl appIi4an
..
r"
for administrative approval by the City should be submitted with the boardwalk construction
plans. e
If1 can be of fiuther assistance, please feel fi-ee to contact me at 776-1064.
Sincerely,
d
Mark I. Hesldrickson
City Forester
8 b 2 a
F
n
cn 8
4
w 0
7
I
‘0
TABLE OF CONTENTS I
1. Exhibit 1. PHOTOGRAPHS & HISTORY OF PRESERVE TRACT U-3.
a. IN 1996, THE CITY CREATED PRESERVE TRACT U-3 AS MITIGATION FOR
PRESERVE DESTRUCTION.
b. (Reason 1 To Deny)
2. Exhibit 2. HISTORY OF PRESERVE TRACT U-3.
a. THE CITY COUNCIL PLACED A PERMANENT LAND RESTRICTION ON
b. (Reason 2 To Deny)
PRESERVE TRACT U-3.
3. Exhibit 3. CITY CODE VIOLATIONS.
a. THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT WHICH REMOVES A PORTION OF
PRESERVE TRACT U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES AT LEAST 15
SECTIONS OF THE CITY CODE.
PRESERVE FROM PRESERVE STATUS.
b. THERE IS NO CITY CODE SECTION THAT ALLOWS REMOVAL OF A
c. (Reasons 3 - 17 To Deny)
4. Exhibit 4. COMP PLAN VIOLATIONS.
a. THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT WHICH REMOVES A PORTION OF
PRESERVE TRACT U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES AT LEAST 8 POLICIES
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN.
b. THERE IS NO COMP PLAN POLICY THAT ALLOWS REMOVAL OF A
PRESERVE FROM PRESERVE STATUS.
c. (Reasons 18 - 25 To Deny)
5. Exhibit 5. SANCTUARY HOMEOWNERS.
a. All 11 OWNERS OF PROPERTY SURROUNDING PRESERVE TRACT U-3
RELIED ON THE CITY’S ACTIONS AND HAVE OBJECTED IN WRITING TO THE PUD
AMENDMENT.
I
b. (Reason 26 To Deny)
6. Exhibit 6. VIOLATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHTS.
a. APPROVAL OF AN UNPAVED ROAD IN A CONSERVATION AREA VIOLATES
THE RIGHTS OF THE SANCTUARY HOMEOWNERS WHO RELIED ON THE LAND
RESTRICTION WHEN PURCHASING THEIR HOMES.
b. (Reason 27 To Deny)
7. Exhibit 7. MATTERS OF LAW.
a. THE CITY’S PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING PRESERVE TRACT U-3 FROM
PRESERVE STATUS WILL NOT AFFECT THE LAND RESTRICTION CREATED BY THE
CITY IN THE 1996 REPLAT.
b. (Reason 28 To Deny)
I -2-
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 2 of 37
I-
8. Exhibit 8. REPLATTING DOES NOT ELIMINATE LAND RESTRICTIONS.
a. THE CITY’S REPLAT OF PRESERVE TRACT U-3 WILL NOT TERMINATE THE
b. (Reason 29 To Deny)
PRESERVE TRACT U-3 CREATED BY THE CITY IN 1996.
9. Exhibit 9. HOMEOWNERS MUST RELEASE LAND RESTRICTIONS.
a. IN ORDER TO RELEASE A LAND RESTRICTION IN A SUBDIVISION ALL
OWNERS WITHIN A SUBDIVISION MUST EXECUTE A RELEASE OF THE LAND
RESTR I CTI ON.
b. (Reason 30 To Deny)
IO. Exhibit IO. LAKE ACCESS EXISTS/ THE PUD AMENDMENT IS NOT NEEDED.
IS ACCESS TO THE LAKE THROUGH PLATTED DRAINAGE EASEMENTS.
a. IN 1999, MARK HENDRICKSON ADVISED THE HOA IN WRITING THAT THERE
b. (Reason 31 To Deny)
11. Exhibit 11. LAKE ACCESS EXISTS/ THE PUD AMENDMENT IS NOT NEEDED.
UNNECESSARY.
a. THERE IS ACCESS TO THE LAKE SO THE PUD AMENDMENT IS
b. (Reason 32 To Deny)
12. Exhibit 12. THE 5 DRAINAGE EASEMENTS.
EASEMENTS TO BE BLOCKED BY TREES AND OTHER STRUCTURES.
a. THE SANCTUARY HOA HAS ALLOWED THE 5 PLATTED LAKE ACCESS
b. (Reason 33 To Deny)
13. Exhibit 13. THE 5 DRAINAGE EASEMENTS.
a. THE SANCTUARY HOA ADMITTED IN WRITING THAT IT HAS A RlGH
ACCESS TO THE LAKE OVER THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS TO MAINTAIN
LAKE.
b. (Reason 34 To Deny)
’ OF
THE
14.Exhibit 14. THE 5 DRAINAGE EASEMENTS.
REGARDING THE DRAINAGE AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS TO THE LAKE.
a. THE SANCTUARY HOA HIRED AN ENGINEER TO RENDER AN OPINION
b. (Reason 35 To Deny)
15. Exhibit 15. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS.
a. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT STATES THAT PRESERVE TRACT U-3 IS A
VIABLE COMMUNITY. “WILDLIFE SPECIES ANTICIPATED TO OCCUR IN THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY INCLUDE FLORIDA MOUSE, GOPHER FROG, AND EASTERN
INDIGO SNAKE”.
b. (Reason 36 To Deny)
16. Exhibit 16. INACCURATE JUSTIFICATION FOR PUD AMENDMENT.
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004
-3-
Page 3 of 37
a. THE PETITIONER’S JUSTIFICATION FOR ACCESS TO THE LAKE IS NOT
b. (Reason 37 To Deny)
FACTUAL.
17. Exhibit 17. INACCURATE JUSTIFICATION FOR PUD AMENDMENT.
a. CITY STAFF ATTEMPTS TO JUSTIFY THE PUD AMENDMENT BY RELIANCE
ON THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTION THAT THERE ARE EXCESS PRESERVE LANDS
IN THE SUBDIVISION.
b. (Reason 38 To Deny)
18. Exhibit 18. CITY STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION IS FLAWED AND INACCURATE.
a. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL CONTAINS INCONSISTENCIES,
IS INCOMPLETE AND DISREGARDS CITY CODE AND CITY COMP PLAN.
b. (Reason 39 To Deny)
19. Exhibit 19. MAY, 2004 PLANNING & ZONING HEARING.
PRESENTATION.
a. CITY STAFF LEFT OUT IMPORTANT ISSUES DURING ITS MAY, 2004 P&Z
b. (Reason 40 To Deny)
20. Exhibit 20. P& Z COMMISSION DID NOT APPROVE.
AMENDMENT.
a. THE P&Z COMMISSION DID NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD
b. (Reason 41 To Deny)
21. Exhibit 21. CONCLUSION.
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PUD AMENDMENT WHICH WILL ALLOW:
a. THERE IS NO LEGAL, FACTUAL, STATUTORY, CODE OR POLICY
i) THE PLACEMENT OF A ROAD IN PRESERVE TRACT U-3;
ii) THE CONSTRUCTION OF UTILITIES IN PRESERVE TRACT U-3;
iii) THE REMOVAL OF PRESERVE TRACT U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS; AND
iv)THE VIOLATION OF THE PRESERVE TRACT U-3 LAND RESTRICTION
WHICH PROHIBITS LAND ALTERATION, AND THE REMOVAL OR
DESTRUCTION OF TREES; SHRUBS OR OTHER VEGETATION.
b. APPROVAL OF AN UNPAVED ROAD IN A CONSERVATION AREA IS BAD
PRECEDENT FOR THE CITY.
c. THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT TAKES A PORTION OF PRESERVE
TRACT U-3 OUT OF PRESERVE STATUS SO THAT A 15 FOOT UNPAVED ROAD CAN
BE CONSTRUCTED.
d. THERE ARE AT LEAST 40 REASONS TO DENY THE PUD AMENDMENT.
e. THERE ARE NO REASONS TO APPROVE IT
-4-
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004 Page 4 of 37
CITY CODE MANDATES THAT PRESERVE TRACT U-3 BE PRESERVED AS IT
SUPPORTS SPECIES LISTED AS ENDANGERED OR THREATENED. THERE ARE
WOODPECKERS, OWLS, GOPHER TORTOISES AND SNAKES IN TRACT U-3.
CONSIDERED FOR
PLANNED UNIT
CITY OF PALM BEACH
GARDENS
DEVELOPMENT
I
“WILDLIFE SPECIES ANTICIPATED TO OCCUR IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
Page 5 of 37 September 28,2004
. . ,.. ..
0
0
CITY CODE MANDATES THAT PRESERVE TRACT U-3 BE PRESERVED AS IT IS AN
OAK FOREST
City Council Presentation
September 28.2004 Page 6 of 37
REASON 1 TO DENY: I IN 1996 PRESERVE TRACT U-3 WAS CREATED AS A RESULT OF A CITY
ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST DEVELOPER PULTE AND AS MITIGATION AS
REQUIRED BY CITY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL.
1. On July 6, 1995 Mark Hendrickson, City Forester of Palm Beach Gardens (“City”)
issued a Notice of Violation to Pulte due to its dumping in an environmental area without a
permit. (See Document 1 attached)
2. On November 6 & 7, 1995 letters were sent by the City Manager that assert that Pulte
will be mitigating for the destruction of the preserve. The mitigation involved preserving
Tract 0-6 as Preserve Tract U-3. (See Document 2 & 3 attached)
3. On November 13, 1995 the Environmental Consultant states that Developer Pulte
damaged approximately 2.1 1 acres of preserved land while developing the Sanctuary.
(See Document 4 attached)
4. On December 18, 1995 Mark Hendrickson sent Puke a Notice of Violation. In the
Notice he cites the City Code. He states that Pulte violated the Plat restrictions which
prohibit altering the land and prohibit activities in the conservation areas. Mark now is in
favor of altering Preserve Tract U-3 and allowing activities prohibited by the Plat, the City
Code and the City Comp Plan. This is selective enforcement of the City Code and Comp
Plan. (See Document 5 attached)
5. On February 2, 1996 James Schnelle advised Mark Hendrickson that 2.69 acres were
impacted by Puke’s actions. (See Document 6 attached)
6. The February 8, 1996 letter from the Principal Planner of the City states: “THE OAK
HAMMOCK PRESERVE ACREAGE IS DIFFERENT THAN THE APPROVED SITE
PLAN, THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM, BUT THE CITY WILL BE REQUIRING THIS ENTIRE
AREA TO BE REFLECTED AS “PRESERVE” ON THE PLAT RATHER THAN OPEN
SPACE”. (See Document 7 attached)
7. On April 11, 1996 City Staff sent the City Council a memo which describes the damage
and the need for mitigation. (See Document 8 attached)
8. The Memo continues: “REGARDLESS, ACREAGE IS BEING SUBTRACTED FROM
AREAS THE CITY REGARDED AS PRESERVE LAND. STAFF FEELS THAT THERE
SHOULD BE COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS OF PRESERVE ACREAGE IN THE
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE TRACT, UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENTS.”
9. The Memo continues: “...staff recommends the following conditions: TRACT 0-6
WITHIN THE SANCTUARY PLAT NO. 2 SHALL BE REPLATTED TO CHANGE THE
TRACT FROM OPEN SPACE STATUS TO PRESERVE STATUS.”
-7-
Cily Council Presentation
September 20.2004 Page 7 of 37
10.On April 11, 1996 the City passed RESOLUTION 66, 1996. (See Document 9 attached)
a. Resolution Condition 1 required that Tract ”0-6” be replatted.
b. Resolution Condition 2 required that Tract “0-6” be replatted to change the tract
from open space status to preserve status.
11.0n July 29, 1996 Tract “0-6” was replatted by TRACT “U-3” as legally identified on
THE SANCTUARY - REPLAT OF TRACT “0-6” (“REPLAT”).
12.Developer Pulte, the HOA, the City Mayor, the City Clerk and the City Engineer
reviewed, amended, approved and executed the REPLAT.
13.On October 25, 1996 the Assistant City Manager imposed a fine of $86,250. (See
Document Pttached)
14.Mr. Hendrickson was personally involved in the Pulte matter and assisted in the
creation of Tract “U-3”.
15. Mr. Hendrickson, who presented the PUD Amendment to the Planning Commission in
May 2004, failed to provide any of this destruction and mitigation information to the
Planning Commission. It is through Mr. Gfesser’s research that any of this information is
available to the City Council. (See Exhibit 19)
16. The City, by its actions, has responsibility for the placement of the above-described
Land Restriction on Preserve Tract U-3. Many Owners in the Sanctuary relied on the
actions of the City in purchasing their properties.
17. Pulte’s destruction of preserve lands was a serious matter.
a. It took approximately 1 year to resolve all of the issues;
b. Pulte reconstructed the damaged preserve area, planted over 1000 plants, and paid
a large fine;
c. Numerous attorneys, planners, environmentalists, engineers and City Staff
members were involved, including Mark Hendrickson; and
d. City Staff and City Council required that Tract “0-6 receive preserve status as
mitigation for Pulte’s destruction of the 2.69 acres of preserve lands.
18. CONCLUSION
a. THE CREATION OF PRESERVE TRACT U-3 WAS MANDATED BY CITY STAFF
AND CITY COUNCIL DUE TO THE DEVELOPER’S DESTRUCTION OF
PRESERVE LAND.
i) CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS;
ii) CITY COMP PLAN REQUIREMENTS;
iii) CITY STAFF REQUIREMENTS, REVIEW AND APPROVAL;
iv) CITY ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS, REVIEW AND APPROVAL;
v) CITY LEGAL COUNSEL REQUIREMENTS, REVIEW AND APPROVAL;
vi) A RECORDED PLAT IN COMPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTES; AND
vii) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION AND APPROVAL.
b. PRESERVE TRACT U-3 WAS CREATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH:
-a-
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 8 of 37
'a4
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS I losQ1 N. MILITARY TRAIL PALM -DENS. MM XM1-
July 6,1995
Mr. Kevin Borlcenhagen
Mte Home Corporation
I350 East Newport Center Drive, Suite 200
Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
VIA FAX AND CERTIFIED MAIL #P 912 110 7! RE:
Dear Mr. Borkenhagen:
The Sanctuary - Western Buffer
The City has not received any information on the above-referenced project as requested m
my June 15, 1995 letter to you. This letter shall serve as a Notice of Viol &ai of the Sanctuary planned Unit Develo ment (PUD). The City feels the stockpii of fill dirt
PUD apprd The reduction of required 25% preserve area and the negative impact to
the trees will not be tolerated by the City.
along a portion of the western P 0' wide preserve areabuffer is in direct conflict with the
The Pulte Home Corporation has thirty (30) days to return the area to the required preservefiuffer, or submit an application to amend the Sanctuary PUD with supporting
documentation. The City's Building Department is still under advisement not to issue a CQ
on existing homes under construction along the western buffer area. As of this letter, the
City is advising Pulte Home Corporation that no building permits €or phase two will be
issued until this matter is resolved.
Failure to comply within the above mentioned time frame may result in a representative of
your corporation being summoned to appear before the Code Enforcement Board. which
has the authority to levy fines of up to 5250.00 per day until compIiance is achieved. By authority of City Code Sections 153.65,153.66.153.67 and Ordinance 22,1993 approving the
Sanctuary PUD, please correct the violation by the number of days specified.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 775-8283.
Sincerely,
CC: Greg Dunham, Assistant Civ Manager Jack Hamon, Building Offiaal Mike Maloney, Code Enforcement Supervisor
.
CIT ‘Y OF PALM BEACH
loso0 n. MIUTARV TRAIL PALM BEACH GARDENS
GARDENS
, -IDA 3341-
November 6, 1995
South Florida Water Hanagement District
3301 Gun Club Road
West Palm Beach, PL 33406
C/O Ur. Robert W. Brown
Supervising Professional
Natural Resourse Xanagement Division
Regulation Department
Application.No: 931001-6
Dear Hr. Brown:
This letter is written to inform you that the city of palm Beach
Gardens has cited Pulte Horns Corporation for violating the
Sanctuary Planned Unit Develomnt. Specifically, the dumping or
the placing of soil or other substances vithin Tracts wU-1, U-2, U-
3” (upland preserve), and ha& nW-ln (wetland Preserve) as platted
(please refer to enclose map). ‘This xrohibited activitv. we feel,
has led to the destruction of trees and native vecretation, and has
been detrimental to other environmental issues.
Pulta Homes has acrreed v- to remove the dumed material, and
-der our City
Palm Beach Gardens d
apprise you of the dumping. If this dumping is within your
jurisdictional boundaries, please undertake the appropriate
enforcement procedures.
If you desire additional information, please feel free to contact
me at (407) 775-8250.
for the destru
Sincerely,
City HaMger
cc: TIB Hernandez, Pulte Hame corp.
.
e
.
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
YO500 N. MILITARY TRAIL * PALM BEACH GARDENS. FLORIDA 334104698
November 7, 1995
Department of the Army
Jacksonville Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 4970
Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019
C/O Mr.John F. Studt
Chief, South Permit Section
Construction-operations Division
Regulatory Branch
South Permits Section
Dear Mr. Studt:
This letter is written to inform you that the City of Palm Beach
Gardens has cited Pulte Homes Corporation for violating the
Sanctuary Planned Unit Development. Specifically, the dumping or
the placing of soil or other substances within hacts "U-1, U-2, U-
3" (upland preserve) t and Tract "W-1" (wetland Preserve) as platted
(please refer to enclose map). bas led to the destruction of trees an d native veuetation, and hk
been detrimental to other environmental issues.
material. and
Dreserve
The City Council of the City of
,mitigate for the dest
Palm Beach Gardens directed staff, by way of this letter, to
apprise you of the dumping. If this dumping is within your
jurisdictional boundaries, please undertake the appropriate
enforcement procedures.
If YOU desire additional information, please feel free to contact me at (407) 775-8250.
Sincerely,
199300688 (IP-CB)
This Drohibited activitv. we fee
Bobbie Herakovich
City Manager
?c: Tim Hernandez, rmlte Homes corp.
m (407) 622654s m (407) 622654s
Mr. Mark Hendrickson - city of Palm Beach Gardens
. . ____
Mr. Mark Hendrickson - city of Palm Beach Gardens
The Sanctuary Preserve
SURECT
mcts
- ---- cc: Kim Glas,Planner
Dear Mark:
We have rwiewed the data provided in your November 9,1995 transmitt .-
and our initial findings are as follows:
1) Preserve Area Tract 0-2 as shown on Sanctuary Plat No. 1 and Pli
. -Scrubby Flatwoods 300 1.f. = 0.34 acres . .Melaleuca 80 = 0.10 .
P Q- .. ..Forestea w etsana(cypress) 3bV .. = u.64---.--
---._ -.-____ Total 1,840 l.ff 2.11 acresf
c
h-mw *-xu _._-
.... . #. _. .. .!' I , ;.,. :~
.i;:; '.3' 9 :.,;.-
I . .,I
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
December 18,1995
Pulte Homes Corporation
33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway
sllite 200
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304
RE: TheSanctmy
Plat 1 d2,Tracts U-1 aad U-2 (IdaUplaadpresuVe Areas) &Tract W-2 (Ida Wetland
Prcsenn Area) & Tract W-2 (bda Wetlandplesave Area); The sanctuary Pld Unit
Devdopmeat-WestanandNorth&nN~Anas
Dear Sirs:
Thislettaisa~~NotiaofViolationofvariollsCityCodes. OnApril7.4~d lO,Jdy11,
GardensQJe€efinmck
ocboba23, october24, dNoMnba29,1995 inspeaions were amdwted
concaning the above referenad prqpaty and tbe fbllowing violations of the cay of Palm Beach
NOTIC& OF VIOLATION
Page 2
The Senctnary - Notice of Violation
NO'CtCE OF VIOLATION
please coofact M at n5-8295, if you heve any questions on this matter.
sincerely.
Tbe ci of Palm&ach Gardens
MadEI.HendriCks0 n
City Forester
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
FACSIMILE
MS.gimGlascastro,pbnner
MLMarkHendrickson, Ci Forestes
CiofPalmBeaChGardens
IosoONorthMilitaqTraiI Palm Beach Gadens. FL 33410-4628
Re: The sanduary
Dear Ms. Glascastro and Mr. Hendrickson:
B. Wethodm -Tract= < 8-5s OQPS *>
On August 11 and 13,1!J9!5,weco&uued a field -on and observed the placementofd, muck, andwooclydebris along the north p-
plaaed as Wet&nd Preserve - TradW2.
linevarging from 440-64iZet in height andsfeet in width. This area was
I.
The land area imDQcted bv the clearing of native trees, uxxiersto~~. and
VaIW
wahm .. the U~land Preserve -Tract U2 and Wedand.
. . .I _-,, - c - .._. 1
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
tOIOON.WMYTWL*PAI.M(IL*PI-ROWDA-
Via Fssimlle
m: Planning and Boning staff
BtEBPIIIQr April 18, 1996
eu&ncTr Potition mc -- 95 a , Robat iL Bents of rand -sign
BOuth, agont tor Pulto Homos corporation, to amond the
8.nattury Planned Unit Dovelopent by adding a utility
usuont urd a landscapo traot to tho northwost eornu of
tho Sanatuary PUD, adding an oasuent to aaaess the northern wetland &rainago structure, and roquesting
approval for a ritig.tion/restoration plan for aroas
within upland and wetland preserves along tho western and northern sections of the project. The site is locatod
north of Flamingo Road, west of Prospuity B~M Road,
ust an& south of ?rr.nahman's Creel, and west of the Palm
Buch County devolopmat of Crystal Point. (29-418-43E)
Historv
In Uay of 1995, the City was contacted by the Frenchman's Creek POA
which was concerned about a berm being constructed within the
Sanctuary's 50' preserve/buffer area . Staff learned
I berm I was the result of Pulte fl
A petition to amend the Sanctuary PUD by Pulte Homes to
include a berm in this area met resistance by the Frenchman*s Creek
POA, City staff, and City Council.
of Ptoied.
On July 6, 1995, the City issued a Hotice of Vi olat ia to Pulte ~omes corporation fp vi- f rom the
a Dennit in an environmental area. On February 6,
1996 the City's Code Enforcement Board heard th e case (#96-8) and
found the Pulte Homes Corporation in violation of various sections
of the Environmental Code. Two fines totaling $10,000.00 were
imposed. The "benu* has been removed. In order to complete
compliance to the Code Broad's ruling, the petitioner amended their
previous application.
Robert Bentz, agent, is requesting to amend the Sanctuary Planned
Unit Development (€'KID), approved on November 4, 1993 by Ordinance
22, 1993. The Sanctuary was approved for 184 single-family
detached and zero lot-line residential homes. The petitioner is
requesting approval to amend the Sanctuary PUD by adding a utility easement and a landscape tract to the northwest corner, adding an easement to access the northern wetland drainage structure, and a
a
mitigationjrestoration plan for sections of the western and
northern upland and wetland preserves. The proposal changes the
project's site data, which is now based on the platted acreage.
The plans submitted for City Council's review indicate that the
Frenchman's Creek 25' wide bemed landscape buffer, including their
fence encroaches into the Sanctuary's 50' wide buffer area at the
encroachment. but they will need to take it out of the uDland.
northwest corner. The vetitioner provoses to all ow thlS ,
preserve status as it is presently p latted. The plans also
indicate a new utility easement for Seacoast Utilities in the
northwest corner. This will need to be taken out of e
Dreserve st- Pursuant to the master drainage plan, the
petitioner was directed by South Florida Water Management District
to construct an access to the project's northern wetland outfall
drainage structure. This access was not addressed during the
City's original review and approval process, and upon
acknowledgement by City staff of its need, an access easement was
required. This easement is vrovosed to be subtracted
wetland preserve as it no longer functions as a wetland as first
antiCiDated. Pulte Homes Corporation's has prepared a replat of
the Sanctuary Plat No. 2 to add the above-mentioned changes to the
approved plat. These changes have all come to light since the
review began of the mitigation for the environmental violations.
The petitioner has submitted native vegetation landscape plans,
contour plans, and drainage plans. These will establish, replace
or mitigate the natural grade and plants once within the 50' wide
preserve/buffer prior to the unapproved dumping, and the site work
that removed the exotic invasive plants. The natural grade of this
area is lower than the adjacent Sanctuary lots and Frenchman's
Creek's buffer. This proposed plan is to look natural, and
function with the Sanctuary's drainage system.
The site data has been revised to correctly reflect the
surveyedjplatted areas. To the benefit of the Sanctuary's homeowners, the platted acreage for preserve status lands is
greater than the original plans figures estimated. Subtracting the
landscaped encroachment, utility easement, and access easement from the current totals does not create fiaures that fall blow the acreage required by the original Pm) appGova1.
is beinq subtracted from areas the City regarded and approved as meserve land.
The petitioner has provided a time schedule for completion of the
restoration once City Council approves the petition. This time
schedule is also incorporated into the city's Code Enforcement
Board's ruling. A $750.00 per day fine will be assessed if the
property has not been brought into compliance within ten (10) weeks after the approval by City Council.
At this time, there are 34 vacant lots, and homes remaining to be built. Pulte Homes has stated they expect to pull their final
building permits by the end of August, 1996. They expect to
request their final Certificate of Occupancy by the end of
November, 1996.
Staff feels there should be compensation for the loss of DreseNe acreaQe i n the proposed landscape tract. utility and acceso
oplldgentg. Staff also feels there should be a safe guard for the Sanctuary POA on the survival of the proposed plantings becZIWe
Pulte Hares logistically could be completed with all house
construction this year. The proposed conditions should adequately
address these concerns.
Staff recommends approval of the PULl amendment only. If the City
Council is ready to approve this petition, staff recommends the
following conditions:
I.
2.
1.
4.
5.
The replat of the Sanctuary Plat No. 2 shall be approved by
City Council within thirty days of approval, or prior to the
issuance of any Building Permit for lot 61 (site plan
number)/152 (plat number), whichever comes first.
Tract 0-6 within the Sanctuarv Plat Wo. 2 8 hall be reDlated to
chanse the tract from ODIZII smce status to Dreserve sta tus,
This replat shall be approved by City Council within thirty
days of approval, or prior to the issuance of any Building
Permit for lot 134/65. whichever come first.
When the mitigation/restoration work is finished, the
petitioners Engineer and Environmental Consultants shall
certify in writing to the City that the site work and
landscaping were installed per the approval. In no event
shall the last Certificate of Occupancy be issued until this
condition is met.
The landscaping shall be warrantedjguaranteed for one year by
the petitioner from the date of certification.
The applicant shall provide a copy of the executed drainage
easements required between lot 163 and 164 and between 159 and
160 prior to the Certificate of Occupancy of the lot/house on
which the easement is within.
April 11. I996
RESOLUTION 66.19%
A RESOUmON OF THE ClTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS. FLDRIDA. AMENDtNG THE
!iQWCIUARY PLANilED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, APPROVED
ON NOVEMBER 4, 1993 BY ORDINANCE 2?!, 1993.
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFEClWE DATE
WHEREAS, the petitioner has quested an amendment to the Sanctuary Planncd Unit
Dcwlopmms by addingautilitywsurmt anda landscape tract to thc nonhmst corner, adding an
casement u) access the wnbun wetlaud drabage and requesting approval for a
mitigatio&cstoration plan for areas within uplard and wetland prcscrva along thc wca~ll and
wlthem dons of thc paojea; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED BY THE ClTY COUNCIL OF THE ClTY OF
PALMBEACHGARDENS..FLORIDk
Sdon 1. ’Ibc City council of tk CFty of Palm &ach Gardarc, Raida,hcreby appnwcs
an amendment to thc Sammy @nncd Unit ~dopmcnt, by adding a utility CBsCwIlt ard
~tractK,thcwRbwestoomer,addingancascmcattoacccsst&northcrnwetlanddrainagc
sauc&rc, ad a mitigationkstoration plan for srcas within upland and wetland prrserves along the
western ad hem sc~%ons of the project.
. ‘.
Section 2. Said amcncbneofo shall be in accordance with the plans on file in the City’s
Plarming and zoning Department as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
April 10.1996, The saactuary Site Plan by Land Design South. 1 Sheet.
Fckuary 5,1996, Tbc %auaty Exisring Conditions by Laud Design South. 1 Sheet.
February 5.1996, Ibc Sanctuary Detail Plan by Land Design South. I SW.
FCaUary5,19961be Sactimy Ovaall Cottmuctim Plan by Land &sign South. 1
Sheet.
Apd 14 19% lk Sanauuy H.bitar Cmss Sections by Laad Dcsigu South. 1 Sheet.
Dcccmbcr 19,1995, Tbe s;mewrY Typical 100 Foot Elevation.
January 23,1996, Survey ofa LaadKlpc Bmn Ewoachment Saoauary Plat 2 by
Bcneh Mask. 1 shca.
January 20.1996, The Sanctuy Pa- and Drahagc Plan by Scbarfer and Fagan.
7 sheers.
I.
9. DcambCr4l995,'Ibc SIllChlary ~Anacontourpkn by Schacfcr aad Fv.
3 sheto.
10. January 22,1996. Thc Sanctuay Buffer Mitigation Comtnrctiaa Time schrdule by
Laad hip Sauth. 1 Sheet.
scction3. -- COd&lW&~Yi
The replat of the sanchlary No. 1. council prior to thc
isuancc of any Building Pcrmit
a 2.
atus. Thip rcpIat shaU k approved by City Coudl prior to the Cati-e of . mcy of platted Lots 64 through 67.
3. When the mitigation/rcstdon work is f~shed. the petitioners Engineer and
Envi
landscapirrg were installed pa the approval. The last Certificate of Occupancy shall
m be issued until this cmditioa has been met.
* I conrulomts &all exti@ in writing to rbe City that the site work and
4. The landscaping shall be warnartd/guarantced for one year by the petitioner &om
thedate the -_ city .- acQepts --- mficatian.
5. The applicant shall provide a copy of tbc exccuted drainage easements required
between Lot 163 and 164 and between 159 and 160 prior to the certificate of
Occupancy of the lothouse on which the casement is within. ..
Scaion 3. This Resolution shall bc effective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED
ATl-ESE
LfM3A V. KOSIER, CMC, CITY CLERK
,&PROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
n I.
VUE:
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR NRTADO
~~CX.LwOMAN MONROE cou" JABJJN
COU"CL4RK
- NAY
n
Sanctuary PBG Homeowners Association
1350 East Newport Center Drive Suite 200
Deerfield Beach. FL 33442
RE: Case No. 96-8
Dear Sanctwry PBG Homeowners Assodation :
This b to sewa as a follow up to the Code Enforcement Board's Find Order. a copy of
which has baen previously provided to you and is hereby attached. Thi licn has been
recorded in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County.
Upon review of your case, the Code Enforcement Officar advised you complied with the
Code Enforcement Board's Finol Order on October 21, 1996 Per the Final Order issued by
the Code Enforcement Board on February 6. 1996. the comply date was June 27, 1996.
Pkase be advised that this lien was accruing at $750.00 per day. The amount of the fine
as of October 21. 1996 is $86,250.00. You may call to make payment arrangements to
settle this lien or pay it in full. Payment is to be made to the Ci of Palm Beach Gardens.
Upon Payment of the lm. a Adease of Licn shall be processed and a copy provided you.
You may submit a letter to appear before the Code Enforcement Board to request a
reduction or waiver of fine. Upon receipt of your letter, you will be notified as to the
scheduled hearing date. It will be your responsibility to present your reasons for the request
to the Code Enforcement llord it the hearing. The Code Enforcement Board will then
determine whether they will or will not reduce or waive the fine.
Your immediate attention to this matter is requested. Please do not hesitate to contact me
if you have any questions.
Sincerely.
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
Greg Dundm
Asaistsnt Cii Manager
Eno: Copy of And Order
I
REASON 2 TO DENY:
IN 1996 THE CITY COUNCIL PLACED A PERMANENT LAND RESTRICTION ON
PRESERVE TRACT U-3.
1. The Dedication for Tract U-3 reads: “THIS CONSERVATION AREA MAY IN NO WAY
BE ALTERED FROM ITS NATURAL STATE. ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED WITHIN THE
CONSERVATION AREA INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, CONSTRUCTION OR
PLACING OF BUILDINGS ON OR ABOVE THE GROUND; DUMPING OR PLACING
SOIL OR OTHER SUBSTANCES SUCH AS TRASH; REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF
EXOTIC/NUISANCE VEGETATION REMOVAL; ANY OTHER ACTIVITIES
DETRIMENTAL TO DRAINAGE, FLOOD CONTROL, WATER CONSERVATION,
EROSION CONTROL, OR FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION OR
PRESERVATION.” (See Document 1 attached)
TREES; SHRUBS OR OTHER VEGETATION- WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
2. The language was mandated by the City Code, the City Staff and the City Council.
3. This language was mandated by City Code and Comp Plan.
4. This language was relied upon by many Sanctuary residents at the time that they
purchased their home.
5. PRESERVE TRACT U-3 IS PROTECTED IN PERPETUITY BY A RECORDED LAND
RESTRICTION WHICH PROHIBITS LAND ALTERATION, AND ACTIVITIES SUCH AS
REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF TREES, SHRUBS OR OTHER VEGETATION.
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004
-9-
Page 9 of 37
July 11,1996
RESOLUTION 106,1996
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE
SANCTUARY REPLAT OF TRACT "0-6".
WHEREAS, the City E@mx has reviewed an application to approve the sanctuary
Replat of Tract "0-6".
WHEREAS,tbCCitypllpirreMhaSdt%emU& that tb& proposed Replat meets au of the technical- of the City's Land Development ReguMons and Cbaptcr 177, F.S. ami - thc approval of the Replat, aod
NOW, THEREFORE, BE Ff RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALMBEACHGARDENS,pLxIRIDA:
&ctiml. The Mayor and City Ckrkarcbcreby directadand authorized toexecutethe
Mylar of the Sanc&y Replat of Tract "Ma, consistiag of two (2) sheets dated June 19%,
prepartd by Bemh Mark Land Surveying and Mappii, Inc. attached hereto as wit "A".
m. This ~Ution shall be ef.rective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS /@DAY
ATEST: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
AND~UFFICIENCY LINDA V. KOSIER, CMC, CITY CLERK .
BY:
VOTE: NAYABSENT
VICE MAYOR FURTADO -7 MAYOR RUSSO
a
e
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT VIOLATES AT LEAST 15 SECTIONS OF THE
CITY CODE.
REASON 3 TO DENY:
CITY CODE MANDATES THAT PRESERVE TRACT U-3 BE PRESERVED AS IT IS AN
OAK FOREST.
Code Sec. 78-246. Designation of environmentally significant lands.
(a) Criteria for designation. Lands shall be designated as environmentally significant if
they contain one or more of the native habitat types listed below, as defined by the Guide
to the Natural Communities of Florida, published by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection:
(I) Coastal scrub;
(2) Xeric hammock or xeric scrub;
(3) Tropical hammock;
(4) Low hammock, temperate hammock or mesic hammock
(5) Mixed hardwood swamp or hydric hammock;
(6) Pond apple slough;
(7) Cypress swamp;
(8) Freshwater marsh;
(9) Mangrove swamp;
(IO) Oak forest;
(I I) Pine flatwoods, mesic and hydric;
(12) Scrubby flatwoods;
(13) Coastal dune and strand; and
(I 4) Wet prairies.
Preserve Tract U-3 was designated a Preserve Area and or Oak Forest Preserve on the
Site Plan, Army Corps of Engineers Permit and SFWMD Permit.
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004
- 10-
Page 10 of 37
REASON 4 TO DENY:
CITY CODE MANDATES THAT PRESERVE TRACT U-3 BE PRESERVED AS IT
SUPPORTS SPECIES LISTED AS ENDANGERED OR THREATENED.
Code Sec. 78-246. Designation of environmentally significant lands.
(b) Additional habitats. Native habitats other than those listed in subsection (a) of
section 78-246 may also be designated as environmentally significant if they are actively
used by or likely to support or contain species listed as endangered, threatened, or of
special concern by applicable laws or regulations adopted by the U.S. or State of Florida.
VIOLATION - The Environmental Assessment states that “Wildlife species anticipated to
occur in the subject property include Florida mouse, gopher frog, and Eastern Indigo
snake”. Since Preserve Tract U-3 supports and is likely to support these species it should
continue to be protected.
There are gopher tortoises in Preserve Tract U-3. Photos of gopher tortoises have been
taken. The GOPHER TORTOISE AND LISTED SPECIES LOCATION MAP on the
following page depicts gopher tortoise nests.
REASON 5 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-250 (a) (1) a.
Code Sec. 78-250. Preserve area requirements.
(a) required preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
Minimum requirements. The minimum requirements listed below shall apply to all
(1) Preserve area designations.
a. A minimum of 25 percent of environmentally significant lands, intact with
canopy, understory and ground cover, such as sand pine scrub, xeric oak
forest, hardwood hammock, and pine flatwoods, shall be set aside as a
preserve.
VIOLATION - The preserve land must remain intact with canopy, understory and ground
cover. Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow destruction of canopy, understory and
ground cover.
- 11 -
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004 Page 11 of 37
REASON 6 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-250 (a) (2) b.
Code Sec. 78-250 (a) (2) 6.
(a)
required preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
Minimum requirements. The minimum requirements listed below shall apply to all
(2) Lands to be set aside in preserve areas. Lands to be set aside in preserve areas
shall be identified and selected based upon the criteria listed below.
b. Preserved in viable condition, with intact canopy, understory, and ground
cover, and maintained without infringement by drainage or utility easements.
VIOLATION - The preserve land must remain intact with canopy, understory and ground
cover. Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow destruction of the canopy, understory
and ground cover.
VIOLATION - The HOA plans to run utility lines through Preserve Tract U-3 which is a
violation of the Code.
REASON 7 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-250 (a) (2) c.
Code Sec. 78-250 (a) (2) c.
(a)
required preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
Minimum requirements. The minimum requirements listed below shall apply to all
(2) Lands to be set aside in preserve areas. Lands to be set aside in preserve areas
shall be identified and selected based upon the criteria listed below.
c. Platted as separate parcels of land, including conservation easements
pursuant to F.S. Section 704.06, or as otherwise approved by the city
council.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow the violation of the underlying
Land Restriction which language was taken from F.S. Section 704.06. The Land
Restriction mandates that there be no alteration to preserve lands and no cutting trees,
shrubs or other vegetation.
-12-
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 12 of 37
REASON 8 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-250 (a) (2) e.
Code Sec. 78-250 (a) (2) e.
(a) required preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
Minimum requirements. The minimum requirements listed below shall apply to all
(2) Lands to be set aside in preserve areas. Lands to be set aside in preserve areas
shall be identified and selected based upon the criteria listed below.
e. Clearly defined, protected, and managed in such a way that it serves a
purpose, such as habitat protection, to the ecological and vegetative
communities adjacent to such area.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will not protect the habitat within Preserve
Tract U-3.
VIOLATION - Management under Sec 78-251 does not allow partition or division of any
part of Preserve Tract U-3.
REASON 9 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-250 (a) (2) g.
Code Sec. 78-250 (a) (2) g.
(a) required preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
Minimum requirements. The minimum requirements listed below shall apply to all
(2) Lands to be set aside in preserve areas. Lands to be set aside in preserve areas
shall be identified and selected based upon the criteria listed below.
g. Maintained as lame open or areen areas with the intent of preserving
such areas to promote self-sustaining, balanced plant growth, biodiversity,
and wildlife enhancement.
VIOLATION - Approval of the Lake Access Tract will not promote wildlife enhancement
and will introduce non-native species.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow the introduction of pets, dogs
and children into the Preserve and that does not promote plant growth, biodiversity and
wildlife enhancement.
- 13-
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 13 of 37
REASON 10 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-250 (a) (2) j.
Code Sec. 78-250 (a) (2) j.
(a)
required preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
Minimum requirements. The minimum requirements listed below shall apply to all
(2) Lands to be set aside in preserve areas. Lands to be set aside in preserve areas
shall be identified and selected based upon the criteria listed below.
j. Compact in nature, avoiding strip or noncontiguous patterns, and arranged
in a continuous fashion where possible. The use of long, narrow preservation
areas is discourased.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow the creation of a strip pattern.
Approval of the Lake Access Tract creates 2 long, narrow preservation areas each less
than 100 feet wide.
REASON 11 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-250 (a) (2) k.
Code Sec. 78-250 (a) (2) k.
(a)
required preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
Minimum requirements. The minimum requirements listed below shall apply to all
(2) Lands to be set aside in preserve areas. Lands to be set aside in preserve areas
shall be identified and selected based upon the criteria listed below.
k. Protecting and preserving of the following: all endangered and threatened
plant, animal, and marine populations, and the habitat of critical value to
regional populations of endangered and threatened species.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will not protect and preserve threatened
plant, animal populations or their habitat.
- 14-
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 14 of 37
REASON 12 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-250 (a) (3) a.
Code Sec. 78-250 (a) (3) a.
(a)
required preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
Minimum requirements. The minimum requirements listed below shall apply to all
(3) Minimum dimension and total area.
a. The minimum lenath or width dimension of all required preserve areas
shall be at least 100 feet, except for preserve areas for historic or specimen
trees when a smaller size may be appropriate.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will create 2 preserve areas each less
than 100 feet.
REASON 13 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-250 (a) (4) e.
Code Sec. 78-250 (a) (4) e.
(a)
required preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
Minimum requirements. The minimum requirements listed below shall apply to all
(4) Minimum dimension and total area.
e. The proposed project shall be managed to ensure the following:
1. The protection of all listed plant and animal species;
2. The highest quality wetlands and uplands are preserved intact.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will not protect plants and animals.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will not keep Preserve Tract U-3 intact.
- 15-
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 15 of 37
REASON 14 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-250 (b) (1) a.
Code Sec. 78-250 (b) (1) a.
(b) Alterations within the preserve.
(1) Permitted alterations. Alteration within the preserve shall require department
approval, and shall be limited to alterations listed below.
a. The construction of boardwalks, pervious walkways, and other passive
recreational or educational facilities.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow the creation of a 15 foot
unpaved road which is not permitted in Preserve Tract U-3.
REASON 15 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-251 (a) (1) (3) and (5).
Code Sec. 78-251. Management plan.
(a) Management plan required. A management plan for the preserve area or any other
conservation areas within the city shall be prepared by the property owner or entity
responsible for management of the area, as determined by the growth management
department. The management plan shall include but not be limited to the following items:
(7) Long term protection of the preserve or conservation area;
(3) Avoidance of activities or land alteration which may disturb the preserve area;
(5) Control of off-road vehicles;
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will not provide long term protection of
Preserve Tract U-3.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow activities which alter and disturb
Preserve Tract U-3.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow off-road vehicles onto Preserve
Tract U-3. The City Engineer states that Bulldozers and other heavy equipment may use
the unpaved road.
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004
- 16-
Page 16 of 37
REASON 16 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-251 (d) (1).
Code Sec. 78-251 (d) (1)
(d) Deed restrictions and similar requirements.
(1) Application. For those lands identified for preserve status, deed restrictions shall
be approved by the city attorney and placed on the lands and recorded in the public
records of the county.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow the violation of the Deed
restrictions placed on Preserve Tract U-3 by the Developer, the HOA and the City.
REASON 17 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-251 (f) (5) (a).
Code Sec. 78-251 (0 (5) (a).
(0 Perpetual maintenance. The petpetual maintenance and protection of designated
preserve areas shall be established by a legally binding, recorded instrument, which shall
be reviewed and approved by the city attorney. Such instruments shall include the
provisions listed below.
(5) Retention by owners. Retention of the preserve area by a homeowners’ or property
owners’ association subject to the restrictions listed below.
a. Such preserve area shall remain undivided, and a lot unit owner or any other person
shall not be able to brinq any action for partition or division of any part thereof. Each lot
or unit owner‘s undivided interest shall be preserved, protected, and maintained
through recorded covenants running with the land or a developer’s agreement. Title of
such area shall be encumbered for the perpetual benefit of the public generally, and all
future use shall be consistent with the intent and purpose of the preservation of open
space, as provided in the city’s comprehensive plan and herein.
I
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will:
1. The division of Preserve Tract U-3;
2. Partition Preserve Tract U-3;
3. Fail to preserve, protect and maintain Preserve Tract U-3 in accordance with the Land
Restriction.
4. Disturb the title of Preserve Tract U-3; and
5. Violate the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
-17-
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 17 of 37
~~ ~ ~
REASON 18 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
GOAL 6.1.
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
GOAL 6.1.: THE NATURAL RESOURCE OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
SHALL BE PRESERVED OR MANAGED IN A MANNER WHICH MAXIMIZES THEIR
PROTECTION, FUNCTIONS, AND VALUES.
VIOLATION - Approval of the Lake Access Tract will not maximize the protection of
Preserve Tract U-3.
REASON 19 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
POLICY 6.1 54.
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
Policy 6.1.5.4: The City shall maintain land development regulations containing specific
standards and guidelines for the protection of environmentally sensitive lands containing
one or more of the following:
n. OakForest
VIOLATION - Approval of the Lake Access Tract will not protect the oak forest contained
within Preserve Tract U-3.
REASON 20 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
POLICY 6.1.9.5.
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
Policy 6.1.9.5: The City shall maintain the following minimum requirements to all required
preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
(I) Lands to be set aside in preserve areas shall be:
b. Preserved in viable condition, with intact canopy, understory, and ground cover,
and maintained without infringement by drainage or utility easements.
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004
- 18-
Page 18 of 37
i. Compact in nature, avoiding strip or noncontiguous patterns and arranged in a
continuous fashion where possible. The use of preservation areas as long, narrow
buffers is discouraged.
j. Protecting and preserving of all endangered and threatened plant, animal and
marine populations and the habitat of critical value to regional populations of
endangered and threatened species.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment does not keep the preserve intact.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment creates a strip pattern. Approval of the
PUD Amendment creates 2 long, narrow preservation areas each less than 100 feet wide.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment destroys habitat.
REASON 21 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
POLICY 6.1.9.5.
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
(2) Alteration within the preserve shall require City approval, and shall be limited to:
1. the construction of boardwalks, pervious walkways, and other passive
recreational or educational facilities.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will create a 15 foot unpaved road which
is not permitted in Preserve Tract U-3.
REASON 22 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
POLICY 6.1.9.5.
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
(2) Alteration within the preserve shall require City approval, and shall be limited to:
2. The construction of firebreaks, fire lanes, or fence lines and the removal
of invasive nonnative species and their replacement with native species.
use of native plant communities, existing roads and trails, etc., as firebreaks
is preferred to the construction of new access roads or fire lanes, which
would result in the introduction and spread of invasive nonnative plant
species.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will create a 15 foot unpaved road which
is not recommended for fire breaks. Firebreaks introduce invasive nonnative species.
- 19-
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 19 of 37
REASON 23 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
POLICY 6.1.9.6.
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
Policy 6.1.9.6: The City shall maintain the following minimum requirements to require a
management plan for all preservation areas and/or conservation lands.
a) A management plan of the preserve area and/or any other conservation areas within
the city shall include but not be limited to long-term protection of the preserve/conservation
area, continued removal of and protection from litter and debris, avoidance of activities or
land alteration which may disturb the preserve area, eradication and continued monitoring
and removal of invasive nonnative plant species, control of off-road vehicles, and
maintenance of hydrological requirements. Periodic prescribed burning or other
mechanical methods that would simulate the natural processes of the natural historic fire
regime may be required for some areas.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will:
1. NOT Protect the Preserve;
2. NOT Avoid land alteration; and
3. NOT Control off-road vehicles. IT ENCOURAGES ALL THREE.
REASON 24 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
POLICY 6.1.9.6.
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
Policy 6.1.9.6: The City shall maintain the following minimum requirements to require a
management plan for all preservation areas and/or conservation lands.
(c) Deed restrictions.
(7) For those lands identified for preserve status, appropriate deed restrictions shall
be placed on the lands and recorded in the public records of the county, or they
may be dedicated to a public entity or approved private conservation group for the
purposes of preservation, or appropriate restrictive conservation easements granted
in perpetuity may be established, or such other similar protective measures may be
established, as determined by the city council, upon completion of all review
processes.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow the violation of the Land
Restriction placed on Preserve Tract U-3.
- 20 -
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 20 of 37
REASON 25 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
POLICY 6.1.9.6.
Policy 6.1.9.6: The City shall maintain the following minimum requirements to require a
management plan for all preservation areas and/or conservation lands.
(d) The perpetual maintenance and protection of designated preserve areas shall be
established by a legally binding, recorded instrument.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow the violation of the Land
Restriction which protects Preserve Tract U-3.
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
- 21 -
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004 Page 21 of 37
REASON 26 TO DENY:
All OWNERS OF PROPERTY SURROUNDING PRESERVE TRACT U-3 RELIED ON
THE CITY’S ACTIONS AND HAVE OBJECTED TO THE PUD AMENDMENT.
1. The Owners that surround Preserve Tract U-3 are in total agreement that this should
not be done. The Association has no support for the PUD Amendment from neighboring
homeowners. (See Document 1 attached)
1. AT LEAST 21 OTHER OWNERS IN THE SANCTUARY HAVE OBJECTED IN WRITING.
(See Document 2 attached)
- 22 -
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 22 of 37
QD
U
j I
I
I 5 I
I
13,
i
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
ADDRESS:
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
ADDRESS: 37 fd L
Palm Beach Gardens. FL 33410
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
BY:
ADDRESS: 6GI f&&md
Palm Beach Gardens. FL 33410
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
ADDRESS: 42 pr/h&d htL
Palm Beach Gardens. FL 33410
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
BY: // V
ADDRESS:
Palm Beach Gardens. FL 33410
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 30,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
~ Palm Beach Gardens7FL 3341 0
e
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Prese
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: P43G
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS:
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 30,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS:
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 30,2004
August 30,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
BY:
ADDRESS: /y $,zce .mo d.A #e
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 30,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: 23 fiflcCL-03 bx
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31, 2004
\ TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
BY:
ADDRESS: <33 I I? r<e dh
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 30,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: ? d f)c, 0 Le 4t-w cl &.le
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 30,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear'City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
ADDRESS: dz&d&mD .( lpib
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
e
e
0
August 30,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
3 3L// 0 ADDRESS:
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: 110 fnlweUdQ Lnl.
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: A-4 d Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
BY:
ADDRESS: &/eg&&
Palm each Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: laa %-& r\d’md
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
1 ADDRESS: 131 s 1 Y)#co me
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31 , 2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Trac
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
U-3 located on
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: (70 SaAnaOOd c A -
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
BY:
ADDRESS: /yg 6!b?kd&
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdlvision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: fc3 0- Lk
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
Palm Beach Gardens, F
REASON 27 TO DENY:
APPROVAL OF AN UNPAVED ROAD IN A CONSERVATION AREA VIOLATES THE
RIGHTS OF THE SANCTUARY HOMEOWNERS WHO RELIED ON THE LAND
RESTRICTION WHEN PURCHASING THEIR HOMES.
The Homeowners expected that Preserve Tract U-3 would remain a preserve in its
entirety.
The City should respect the rights of the Homeowners that purchased in reliance on the
City’s actions.
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004
- 23 -
Page 23 of 37
REASON 28 TO DENY:
THE CITY'S ZONING, LAND USE OR REPLATTING ACTIONS WILL NOT AFFECT THE
UNDERLYING LAND RESTRICTION ON PRESERVE TRACT U-3.
THE PUD AMENDMENT ALLOWING THE CREATION OF THE LAKE ACCESS TRACT
WILL NOT REMOVE THE UNDERLYING LAND RESTRICTION WHICH PROHIBITS
TRACT U-3 FROM ALTERATION FROM ITS NATURAL STATE AND THE REMOVAL
OR DESTRUCTION OF TREES; SHRUBS OR OTHER VEGETATION.
Courts in the State of Florida have ruled that the zoning, rezoning or changing the
use of real property cannot in any way abolish, abrogate, or enlarge lawful
contractual covenants and restrictions pertaining to the property. The existing Land
Restriction will remain.
A. FLORIDA CASES
I. The zoning or rezoning of real property cannot in any way abolish, abrogate, or enlarge
lawful contractual covenants and restrictions pertaining to the property. Staninqer v.
Jacksonville Expressway Authoritv, 182 So. 2d 483, 22 A.L.R.3d 950 (Fla. Dist. Ct. ADD.
1st Dist. 1966).
2. The fact that the lot in question has been zoned by the city for purposes intended to be
employed by the defendant does not abrogate the restriction nor impair the lawful contract
rights created by it. Tolar v. Mever. 96 So. 2d 554 (Fla. Dist. Ct. ADP. 3d Dist. 1957).
3. Purchasers of property zoned for commercial use but restricted to residential use by a
covenant running with the land of which they had actual as well as constructive notice are
properly prohibited from operating a day nursery. Matthews v. Olson, 212 So. 2d 357 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. ADP. 2d Dist. 1968). Children's day care use as violation of restrictive covenant,
81 A.L.R. 5th 345.
4. An apartment house zoning law does not have the effect of altering or modifying deed
restrictions as to the sale of lots in a subdivision restricting the use of lots to single-family
residences. Harwick v. Indian Creek Country Club, 142 so. 2d 128 (Fla. Dist. Ct. APP. 3d
Dist. 1962).
B. US CASES (See Attached Memo)
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004
-24-
Page 24 of 37
MEMORANDUM
A. WILL A CITY'S ZONING OR LAND USE ACTIONS AFFECT THE UNDERLYING
COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ON A PLAT?
ANSWER- NO. THE FLORIDA COURTS HAVE RULED THAT THE ZONING,
REZONING OR CHANING THE USE OF REAL PROPERTY CANNOT IN ANY WAY
ABOLISH, ABROGATE, OR ENLARGE LAWFUL CONTRACTUAL COVENANTS AND
RESTRICTIONS PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY.
1. The zoning or rezoning of real property cannot in any way abolish, abrogate, or enlarge
lawful contractual covenants and restrictions pertaining to the property. Staninaer v.
Jacksonville Expressway Authoritv, 182 So. 2d 483. 22 A.L.R.3d 950 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1st Dist. 1966).
2. The fact that the lot in question has been zoned by the city for purposes intended to be
employed by the defendant does not abrogate the restriction nor impair the lawful contract
rights created by it. Tolar v. Mever, 96 So. 2d 554 (Fla. Dist. Ct. ADP. 3d Dist. 1957).
3. Purchasers of property zoned for commercial use but restricted to residential use by a
covenant running with the land of which they had actual as well as constructive notice are
properly prohibited from operating a day nursery. Matthews v. Olson. 212 So. 2d 357 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1968). Children's day care use as violation of restrictive covenant,
81 A.L.R. 5th 345.
4. An apartment house zoning law does not have the effect of altering or modifying deed
restrictions as to the sale of lots in a subdivision restricting the use of lots to single-family
residences. Harwick v. Indian Creek Countrv Club, 142 so. 2d 128 (Fla. Dist. Ct. ADP. 3d
Dist. 1962).
ANSWER- NO. MANY STATE COURTS HAVE RULED THAT THE ZONING,
REZONING OR CHANING THE USE OF REAL PROPERTY CANNOT IN ANY WAY
ABOLISH, ABROGATE, OR ENLARGE LAWFUL CONTRACTUAL COVENANTS AND
RESTRICTIONS PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY.
1. A zoning ordinance cannot destroy, impair, abrogate, or enlarge the force and effect of
an existing restrictive covenant; Whiting v Seavev, 159 Me 61, 188 A2d 276; Martin v
Weinbera, 205 Md 519, 109 A2d 576: Abrams v Shuner. 336 Mich 59, 57 NW2d 445;
Lefferts Manor Asso. v Fass, 28 Misc 2d 1005.21 1 NYS2d 18, app dismd /2d Dept) 13
ADP Div 2d 812, 217 NYS2d 531: Olberdinn v Smith (ADP. Hamilton Co) 34 Ohio L Abs 84,
34 NE2d 296; Hill v Onrodnik. 83 RI 138.113 A2d 734, reh den 83 RI 146, 114 A2d 398;
Farmer v Thompson flex Civ ADP Fort Worth) 289 SW2d 351 , writ ref n r e.
2. County zoning regulations do not abrogate restrictive covenants nor impair the lawful
contract rights created thereby. Tolar v Mever (Fla APP D3) 96 So 2d 554.
3. Permits as to use of property by zoning authorities do not abrogate or destroy the rights
of persons acquired under covenants as to restrictive use of property, where such
restrictions do not violate public law or public policy. Arlington Cemeterv Corp. v Hoffman,
216 Ga 735, 119 SE2d 696.
4. A change in zoning does not override restrictions placed in deeds. Morqan v Matheson,
362 Mich 535, 107 NW2d 825.
5. A valid restriction upon the use of property is not terminated, superseded, or nullified by
the enactment of a zoning ordinance, Hirsch v Hancock (2nd Dist) 173 Cal ADP 2d 745,
343 P2d 959,11 OGR 167; Kosel v Stone, 146 Mont 218,404 P2d 894; Shuford v
Asheville Oil Co., 243 NC 636, 91 SE2d 903; Mills v HTL Enterprises, Inc., 36 NC App
410,244 SE2d 469, cert den 295 NC 551,248 SE2d 727.
6. The zoning or rezoning of real property cannot in any way abolish, abrogate, or enlarge
lawful contractual covenants and restrictions pertaining thereto. Staninner v Jacksonville
Expressway Authoritv (Fla ADP D1) 182 So 2d 483.22 ALR3d 950
7. Nor is the validity of the restriction thereby affected. Hirsch v Hancock (2nd Dist) 173
Cal APP 2d 745,343 P2d 959.11 OGR 167.
8. A change in zoning does not of itself justify invalidation of building restrictions. Cooper v
Kovan, 349 Mich 520.84 NW2d 859.
9. The municipal zoning authority has no power to change or vary covenants running with
the land if such covenants are otherwise valid. Myers v Smith (Summit Co) 112 Ohio App
169, 13 Ohio Ops 2d 464. 171 NE2d 744, motion overr, app dismd for want of debat q 171
Ohio St 292, 13 Ohio Ops 2d 338. 170 NE2d 71 , cert den 365 US 843, 5 L Ed 2d 809,81
S Ct 802.
10. Zoning ordinances if less stringent do not diminish the legal effect of private building
restrictions, Wier v Isenberg (2d Dist) 95 111 APP 3d 839. 51 111 Dec 376, 420 NE2d 790;
Richlawn v McMakin, 313 Kv 265.230 SW2d 902, cert dismd 340 US 945,95 L Ed 682,
71 S Ct 531 ; Strauss v Ginzberg. 21 8 Minn 57. 15 NW2d 130, 155 ALR 1000
11. The rezoning of property for purposes other than residential does not supersede the
original plat restrictions so as to prevent the enforcement of such restrictions. Tower v
Mudd Realtv Co. (Okla) 317 P2d 753; Maqnolia Petroleum Co. v Drauver. 183 Okla 579,
83 P2d 840, 119ALR 1112.
12. A zoning ordinance permitting the use of property in a residential area for churches,
schools, libraries, community buildings, and certain professional offices, did not override a
restriction against using buildings erected on property for other than residential purposes.
Abrams v Shuqer, 336 Mich 59.57 NW2d 445.
13. Litigation in this connection most frequently arises because of an attempt to use
property which is subject to residential restrictions for business or commercial purposes,
where the area in which the property is located has been zoned or rezoned for such
purposes. Generally, a zoning law cannot constitutionally relieve land within the district
covered by it from lawful restrictions affecting its use for business purposes, Murphev v
Grav. 84 Ariz 299,327 P2d 751; Hvsinner v Mullinax, 204 Tenn 181, 319 SW2d 79.
14. A zoning ordinance may not relieve land from lawful restrictive covenants contained in
deeds embracing a given area, for such ordinance cannot affect or impair the contractual
obligation granted by such restrictions. Richlawn v McMakin, 313 Kv 265, 230 SW2d 902,
cert dismd 340 US 945,95 L Ed 682.71 S Ct 531.
15. An ordinance zoning an area for business purposes could not operate to deprive
plaintiff property owners of such rights as they might have against the defendant property
owners by virtue of restrictions prohibiting the erection of ,buildings in which there should
be carried on any business offensive, noxious, or detrimental to the use of land in the
vicinity for private residences. Scillia v Szalai, 142 NJ Eq 92, 59 A2d 435 (enjoining
gasoline station).
16. Such a zoning law will not take precedence over the restrictive covenant under the
police power, unless the public health, comfort, or welfare demands such an enactment.
See Schwartz v State, 95 Misc 2d 525,408 NYS2d 239, affd /3d Dept) 72 ADP Div 2d 490,
426 NYS2d 100 (a restrictive covenant in a conveyance of property zoned for commercial
uses and originally intended for a shopping mall development, which limits the
development of the property largely to residential one-family homes, and which was
inserted in the conveyance because the shopping mall development was instead to be
located across the highway, has not been shown to be in illegal restraint of trade, and is
valid and enforceable).
17. Ault v Shiplev, 189 Va 69, 52 SE2d 56 (holding that public health, comfort, or welfare
did not demand that restriction against erection of more than one dwelling house on lot and
prohibiting any storehouse, garage, or filling station be superseded by zoning ordinance
designating area as neighborhood shopping center).
18. Thus, an ordinance zoning or rezoning property for business purposes or for
commercial uses does not and cannot override, nullify, abrogate, or impair restrictions
limiting the property to residential use, nor can it operate to relieve the land from such
restrictions, and the enactment of an ordinance rezoning lots from "residential" to
"commercial" does not establish that the original plan or scheme restricting the tract on
which such lots are located to dwelling houses was ever abandoned. Mever v Stein, 284
Kv 497, 145 SW2d 105: Chuba v Glasnow. 61 NM 302,299 P2d 774; Willott v
Beachwood. 175 Ohio St 557.26 Ohio ODS 2d 249.197 NE2d 201; Lebo v Johnson flex
Civ APP San Antonio) 349 SW2d 744, writ ref n re (Jan 3, 1962) and rehg of writ of error
overr (Jan 31 , 1962); Hodnkins v Pickett (Tex Civ A~D Fort Worth) 344 SW2d 461.
19. The action of a planning and zoning commission in rezoning lots from "residence" to
"business" to permit the erection of a motel did not relieve the land from a restrictive
covenant. Parrish v Newburv (Kv) 279 SW2d 229.
20. While the action of the zoning commission in putting residentially restricted lots in a
commercial class indicated a substantial change in the district from residential to
commercial purposes, yet it did not have the force of destroying the restrictive covenant.
Franklin v Moats (Kv) 273 SW2d 812.
21. A change in the zoning ordinance to permit off-street parking could not operate to
destroy the obligations involved in restrictions limiting the use of lots to residence
purposes. Brideau v Grissom, 369 Mich 661. 120 NW2d 829.
22. A zoning ordinance under which the city zoning appeal board authorized the
defendants to erect a building for manufacturing purposes did not abrogate or cancel
previously existing restrictions limiting use of the property to residence purposes and
prohibiting erection of any building except a private detached dwelling. Hisle v Sambrook,
346 Mich 680.78 NW2d 649.
23. Similarly, restrictions prohibiting erection of any structure other than one single-family
dwelling and use of any building erected for any other purpose than that of a private
dwelling were not impaired by the city zoning commission's consenting to the use of
certain lots for off-street parking for automobiles of customers and employees of a
commercial area excepted from the restrictions, or by the city engineer's finding that
parking in the area had created a hazard which could be minimized by off-street parking.
Finlev v Batsel, 67 NM 125, 353 P2d 350.
24. The rezoning of a large part of a 62-acre parcel to an industrial use, including the area
upon which it was desired to build a hospital, could not be considered as affecting
restrictive covenants limiting the whole tract to residential use with no more than one
detached single-family dwelling unit on each lot. Rick v West, 34 Misc 2d 1002, 228
NYS2d 195.
25. The fact that in the opinion of a town planning board land is best suited for commercial
development does not nullify or supersede a valid restriction upon the use of real property
which in no way threatens or endangers the safety, health, comfort, or general welfare of
the community. Brown v Williams, 4-Misc 2d 312,148 NYS2d 841 , affd /2d Dept) 3 APP
Div 2d 939,163 NYS2d 712, reh and app den 12d Dept) 4 ADP Div 2d 745,165 NYS2d
- 699 and app den 3 NY2d 707.
26. An ordinance extending an oil and gas drilling zone to include a plat addition did not
supersede restrictions that all lots in the plat shall be restricted to residences only, so as to
prevent enforcement of such restrictions. Southwest Petroleum Co. v Logan, 180 Okla
477.71 P2d 759.
27. A "residential only" use restriction in a deed to property located in a zone from which
residential uses were excluded would not be deemed invalid where the deed restriction
was for a 25 year period and therefore did not amount to a prohibition of the use of the
land and where the plaintiff-grantee was aware of both the deed restriction and the zoning
ordinance when he purchased the property. Pearson v Ft. Worth Nat'l Bank (Tex Civ ADP
Fort Worth) 564 SW2d 175, writ ref n r e (Jul26, 1978) and rehg of writ of error overr (Oct
4, 1978).
Osborne v Hewitt (Kv) 335 SW2d 922; Fox v Miner (Wvo) 467 P2d 595.
Frev v Povnor (Okla) 369 P2d 168.
28. Adoption by a city of an ordinance unzoning a tract to commercial uses would not
have the effect of nullifying a general plan of improvement devised by the original vendor.
Atfortish v Wagner, 200 La 198.7 So 2d 708
29. Other situations have also arisen where unsuccessful attempts have been made to
override restrictions on property because of less stringent zoning laws. For example, the
fact that property is zoned for multiple dwelling residences or for apartment houses does
not have the effect of altering or modifying a restriction limiting use of the property to
single-family residences; Harwick v Indian Creek Country Club (Fla ADP D3) 142 So 2d
- 128
30. The fact that a zoning ordinance permits apartment houses in a residential district
does not have the effect of abrogating a restriction against the erection of apartment
houses; Heitkernper v Schmeer, 146 Or 304.29 P2d 540, reh den 146 Or 338,30 P2d
1119.
31. The fact that city zoning authorities permit a variance from the setback requirements
of the zoning ordinance for the erection of a garage attached to a house is not controlling
in the face of a more stringent restriction; Mvers v Smith (Summit Co) 112 Ohio ADP 169,
13 Ohio OPS 2d 464,171 NE2d 744, motion overr, app dismd for want of debat q 171 Ohio
St 292, 13 Ohio Ops 2d 338. 170 NE2d 71 cert den 365 US 843.5 L Ed 2d 809,81 S Ct
- 802
32. The fact that an ordinance regarding sideyards is not violated does not provide license
to violate a more stringent restriction. Webster v Dane Corn.. 9 Wis 2d 437, 101 NW2d
- 616.
33. While a zoning ordinance is not in itself of controlling force, yet it is a circumstance
tending to show that at least in the judgment of the municipality the character of the
neighborhood within the zoned area was changing or had actually changed from
residential to business uses for purposes of determining whether a restrictive covenant
should no longer be enforced because of changed conditions. Hill v Oarodnik. 83 RI 138,
1 13 A2d 734, reh den 83 RI 146,114 A2d 398.
34. While a change of zoning certainly is not decisive, it is admissible as evidence to
determine whether there has been such a change of use in the neighborhood as to render
single-family dwelling restrictions unenforceable. Bard v Rose (4th Dist) 203 Cal APP 2d
232. 21 Cal Rptr 382.
35. It was proper to take into consideration, in determining whether circumstances had so
changed as to make it impossible to secure in any substantial degree the benefits intended
to be secured by restrictions limiting lots to residence purposes, the fact that the area in
question was zoned for retail stores and that the immediately adjacent area was zoned for
light industrial use, although this is not to say that a zoning ordinance will invalidate an
otherwise enforceable plan of restriction. Wallace v Hoffman, 336 111 ADP 545, 84 NE2d
- 654.
B. DO ZONING ORDINANCES OVERRIDE PRIVATE COVENANTS?
ANSWER- NO. ZONING ORDINANCES AND PRIVATE COVENANTS OPERATE
INDEPENDENTLY.
1. Zoning ordinances regulate the use of land through the exercise of the police power in
accordance with a comprehensive plan for the entire community. As an exercise of the
state police power to promote the general welfare, zoning is entirely divorced in concept,
creation, enforcement, and administration from restrictions arising out of agreements
between private parties who, in the exercise of their constitutional right of freedom of
contract, can impose whatever lawful restrictions upon the use of their lands that they
deem advantageous or desirable. Zoning restrictions and restrictions imposed by private
covenants are independent controls upon the use of land, the one imposed by the
municipality for the public welfare, the other privately imposed for private benefit.
2. Both types of land use restrictions are held by courts to legally operate independently of
one another. Barrett v. Lipscomb, 194 Cal. App. 3d 1524, 240 Cal. Rptr. 336 (3d Dist.
1987); McDonald v. Emporia-Lvon County Joint Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 10 Kan. ADP. 2d
235, 697 P.2d 69 (1985); Annison v. Hoover, 517 So. 2d 420 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 19871,
writ denied, 519 So. 2d 148 (La. 1988); Our Way Enterprises, Inc. v. Town of Wells, 535
A.2d 442 (Me. 1988).
3. Whether either type of restriction is valid and enforceable presents two separate and
distinct legal issues. As a local governmental exercise of the police power, zoning
restrictions are subject to the usual constitutional and statutory limitations imposed on the
exercise of the zoning power. Private covenant restrictions are subject to limitations
imposed by the sometimes technical common law real property rules in each state which
govern the creation, operation, termination, and enforcement of covenant restrictions that
"run with the land." With respect to interpretation of the scope of private covenant
restrictions see the ruling of the Nebraska Supreme Court in Breelina v. Churchill. 228
Neb. 596, 423 N.W.2d 469, 76 A.L.R.4th 493 (1988): A restrictive covenant is to be
construed in connection with the surrounding circumstances, which the parties are
supposed to have had in mind at the time they made it; the location and character of the
entire tract of land; the purpose of the restriction; whether it was for the sole benefit of the
grantor or for the benefit of the grantee and subsequent purchasers; and whether it was in
pursuance of a general building plan for the development of the property.
4. The general rule adopted by state courts that zoning restrictions and private covenants
legally operate independently of one another. An important implication of the "independent
operation rule" is the uniformly held view of state courts that a zoning ordinance does not
terminate, supersede, or in any way affect a valid private restriction on the use of real
property. See the following cases:
Federal. C. F. Lvtle Co. v. Clark, 491 F.2d 834 (10th Cir. 1974).
Alabama, Brown v. Morris, 279 Ala. 241, 184 So. 2d 148 (1966).
Alaska. Kalenka v. Tavlor, 896 P.2d 222 (Alaska 1995) (zoning provision allowing both
duplexes and single family dwellings is irrelevant to determination of whether covenant
restricts use within subdivision to duplexes).
Arizona. Murphev v. Grav, 84 Ariz. 299, 327 P.2d 751 (1958).
Arkansas. Owens v. Camfield, 1 Ark. App. 295, 614 S.W.2d 698 (1981).
California. Barrett v. Lipscomb. 194 Cal. APP. 3d 1524. 240 Cal. Rptr. 336 (3d Dist.
1987); Seaton v. Clifford, 24 Cal. ADP. 3d 46, 100 Cal. Rptr. 779 (2d Dist. 1972).
Connecticut. Johnson v. Guarino, 22 Conn. Supp. 235. 168 A.2d 171 (Super. Ct.
1960).
District of Columbia. Castleman v. Avignone. 12 F.2d 326 (ADP. D.C. 1926).
Florida. Rocek v. Markowitz. 492 So. 2d 460 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App . 5th Dist. 1986);
Illinois. Dolan v. Brown, 338 Ill. 412, 170 N.E. 425 (1930).
Indiana. Metropolitan Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Marion Countv, Ind., Div. One v. Lane,
prior adjoining landowners did not require apartment building developer to obtain the
Harwick v. Indian Creek Country Club, 142 So. 2d 128 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1962).
786 N.E.2d 1162 (Ind. Ct. ADP. 2003) (holding that agreement between
neighbors' approval of a planned apartment project; none of the parties to the agreement
were parties to the dispute between the developer and neighbors over developer's
application for height variance). Bob Lavne Contractor, Inc. v. Buennaqel. 158 Ind. ADP.
43, 301 N.E.2d 671 (2d Dist. 1973).
Iowa. Burqess v. Magarian. 214 Iowa 694, 243 N.W. 356 (1932).
Kansas. McDonald v. Emporia-Lvon Countv Joint Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 10 Kan. ADP.
2d 235. 697 P.2d 69 (1985).
Kentucky. Citv of Richlawn v. McMakin, 313 Kv. 265, 230 S.W.2d 902 (19501, cert.
dismissed, 340 U.S. 945, 71 S. Ct. 531, 95 L. Ed. 682 (1951).
Louisiana. Annison v. Hoover, 517 So. 2d 420 (La. Ct. ADP. 1st Cir. 19871, writ denied,
519 So. 2d 148 (La. 1988); Hammons v. East Baton Rouge Parish, Dept. of Public Works,
Permit Div.. 461 So. 2d 1225 (La. Ct. ADP. 1st Cir. 1984).
Maine. Whiting v. Seavev. 159 Me. 61, 188 A.2d 276 (1 963).
Maryland. Martin v. Weinberg, 205 Md. 519, 109 A.2d 576 (1954).
Massachusetts. Jennev v. Hvnes. 282 Mass. 182,184 N.E. 444 (1933).
Michigan. Rofe v. Robinson, 93 Mich. ADP. 749, 286 N.W.2d 914 (19791, case
remanded, 408 Mich. 899,295 N.W.2d 228 (19801, on remand to, 99 Mich. App. 404,298
N.W.2d 609 (19801, decision rev'd (Supreme Court rev'd the
Court of Appeals which found a change in the character of the subdivision which made
enforcement of the restrictions inequitable), 415 Mich. 345. 329 N.W.2d 704 (19821, on
remand to, 126 Mich. ADP. 151, 336 N.W.2d 778 (1983); Morgan v. Matheson, 362 Mich.
535, 107 N.W.2d 825 (1961).
Minnesota. Strauss v. Ginzberg, 218 Minn. 57, 15 N.W.2d 130, 155 A.L.R. 1000
(1944).
Montana. State ex rel. Region II Child and Familv Services, Inc. v. District Court of
Eighth Judicial Dist., 187 Mont. 126, 609 P.2d 245 (19802.
New Jersey. Scillia v. Szalai, 142 N.J. Ea. 92, 59 A.2d 435 (Ch. 1948).
New Mexico. Sinqleterrv v. Citv of Albuquerque, 96 N.M. 468, 632 P.2d 345 (1 981 );
New York. Renan v. Tobin, 89 A.D.2d 586,452 N.Y.S.2d 249 (2d Dep't 1982); Gordon
Hines Corp. v. Citv of Albuquerque, 95 N.M. 31 1,621 P.2d 11 16 (1980).
v. Incorporated Villaqe of Lawrence, 84 A.D.2d 558.443 N.Y.S.2d 415 (2d Dep't 19811,
order affd, 56 N.Y.2d 1003,453 N.Y.S.2d 683.439 N.E.2d 398 (1982).
Johnston, 53 N.C. ADP. 97, 280 S.E.2d 1 (1981); Mills v. HTL Enterprises. Inc., 36 N.C.
App. 410, 244 S.E.2d 469 (1978).
North Carolina. Crabtree v. Jones, 112 N.C. APR. 530.435 S.E.2d 823 (1993); Buie v.
Oklahoma. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Drauver, 1938 OK 545, 183 Okla. 579, 83 P.2d
840, 119 A.L.R. 11 12 (1938).
Oregon. Heitkemper v. Schmeer, 146 Or. 304, 29 P.2d 540, reh'g denied, 146 Or. 338,
30 P.2d 1 1 19 (1 934).
Pennsylvania. Haskell v. Gunson, 391 Pa. 120. 137 A.2d 223 (1958).
Rhode Island. Farrell v. Meadowbrook Corp., 11 1 R.I. 747, 306 A.2d 806 (1973).
South Carolina. lnabinet v. Booe. 262 S.C. 81, 202 S.E.2d 643 (1974).
Texas. Farmer v. Thompson, 289 S.W.2d 351 (Tex. Civ. ADP. 1956).
Virginia. Auk v. Shiplev. 189 Va. 69. 52 S.E.2d 56 (19491.
Wisconsin. Webster v. Dane Corp., 9 Wis. 2d 437, 101 N.W.2d 616 (1960).
Wyoming. Fox v. Miner, 467 P.2d 595 (Wvo. 1970); Anderson v. Bommer, 926 P.2d
959 (Wvo. 1996) (zoning restrictions cannot override, annul, abrogate, or relieve land from
building restrictions or covenants; thus, lacking any evidence that restrictive covenants are
invalid, illegal, or contrary to public policy, city ordinances cannot relieve homeowner of
obligation to uphold the restrictive covenants).
5. The fact that a use may be permitted by a zoning ordinance does not relieve an owner
of the obligation to comply with a more restrictive private covenant. In some cases, zoning
ordinances expressly provide that the provisions thereof do not abrogate private covenant
restrictions. See, e.g., Kramer v. Nelson, 189 Wis. 560, 208 N.W. 252 (1926); Burgess v.
Maqarian, 214 Iowa 694,243 N.W. 356 (1932).
6. However, such provisions are irrelevant in view of the express holding by courts that
zoning ordinances do not affect private restrictions and that a municipality has no authority
through zoning to terminate private covenants.
7. Consider also the analogous situation involved in cases which hold that a use can be
enjoined as a private nuisance even though it happens to be a permitted use under the
zoning ordinance. See, e.g., Dunham v. Zoning Board of Town of Westerlv, 68 R.I. 88, 97,
26 A.2d 614,618 (1942)
8. When a zoning restriction and a private covenant are in conflict, the more restrictive of
the two prevails. Brown v. Morns, 279 Ala. 241, 184 So. 2d 148 (1966); LaSalle Nat'l Bank
v. Village of Palatine. 92 lll.A~p.2d 327. 236 N.E.2d 1 (1968); Citv of Gatesville v. Powell,
500 S.W.2d 581 flex. Civ. ADP. Wac0 19731, writ refused n.r.e., (Jan. 23, 1974).
And see McDonald v. Emporia-Lyon Countv Joint Bd. of Zonina Appeals, 10 Kan. App .2d
235. 697 P.2d 69 (19852,
10. As stated above, a zoning ordinance which permits less restrictive uses than those to
which property is limited by a private covenant does not impair the efficacy of the private
restriction. The language used in this connection is that the zoning ordinance does not
"override" the restrictive covenant. As was stated by the Court of Appeals of Maryland in
Peny v. County Board of Appeals: Perry v. Countv Bd. of Appeals for Montqomew Countv,
21 1 Md. 294, 127 A.2d 507 (1956).
11. The above discussed "independent operation" principle is applied in a variety of
contexts. For example, it has been held that annexation by a city of an area restricted by
private covenants did not relieve the area of the restrictions. Sorrentino v. Cunninaham,
111 Ind. App. 212. 39 N.E.2d 473 (1942).
12. It has also been held that statutory vacation of a filed subdivision map on which the
developer had imposed restrictive covenants did not affect the covenants. Bob Layne
Contractor, Inc. v. Buennanel, 158 Ind. App. 43, 301 N.E.2d 671 (2d Dist. 1973).
13. In /-/askel/ v. Gunson, (accounting practice constituted nonresidential use of property
and therefore violated restrictive covenant) the court construed a private covenant
prohibiting the use of property "for any purpose other than that of a private dwelling house"
to prohibit use of a portion of a dentist's house for his ofice, even though the zoning
ordinance allowed that use of a private dwelling. The court, after noting the fact that the
zoning ordinance permitted such a home occupation, stated: It is to be observed ... that a
gulf of difference separates a zoning regulation from a covenant restriction. What a
covenantor specifically demands of the person to whom he sells his property has nothing
to do with what the community, through municipal regulation exacts of every property
owner. Haskell v. Gunson, 391 Pa. 120,137 A.2d 223 (1958). See also Grasso v.
Thimons, 384 Pa. Super. 593,559 A.2d 925 (1989)
REASON 29 TO DENY:
A REPLAT OF A PLAT DOES NOT TERMINATE THE PRESERVE TRACT U-3 LAND
RESTRICTION.
THE LEGAL AND EQUITABLE RIGHTS OF ALL SANCTUARY RESIDENTS WHO
PURCHASED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A PLAT ARE NOT ELIMINATED.
1. Replatting does not eliminate restrictions. Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund Title Note
24.03.02. (See Document 1 attached)
2. The rights of persons who may have purchased in accordance with the prior plat would
not be eliminated. Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund Title Note 24.03.02.
3. When property is dedicated as a park on a recorded plat- Releases by all record
owners of property in the platted subdivision or an appropriate class action would be
necessary to eliminate the private rights. Under the so-called broad or unity rule followed in
Florida as to parks, purchasers in the platted subdivision acquire unconditional private
easements in the park shown on the plat. Boothby v. Gulf Properties of Alabama, 40 So.
2d 11 7 (Fla. 1948) Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund Title Note 24.03.02.
4. When a second plat has been recorded after a prior recording of a plat of the same or
parts of the same lands, the first plat may be vacated upon application by either the
developer of the first plat, OR ALL OF THE OWNERS SHOWN ON THE SECOND PLAT
provided certain conditions are met. FL ST 177.101 (I), (2).
THE PUD AMENDMENT AUTHORIZING A REPLAT OF THE EXISTING REPLAT WILL
NOT REMOVE THE UNDERLYING LAND RESTRICTION ON PRESERVE TRACT U-3.
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004
-25-
Page 25 of 37
effective upon conveyance of one or more of the lots according to the plat and by
reference thereto, and (4) are then binding as between the subdivider and his
purchasers and as between the purchasers themselves.
The Fund's opinion is that title to all of the lots in the subdivision would
be subject to the restrictions and reverter and would not be insurable without an
exception for them. See TN 24.01.03.
Replatting May Not Eliminate Restrictions TN 24.03.02
~~aRdresgictionsconlpiRad ..
in a prior plat?
The answer in general is in the negative. The rights of the original
subdivider, unless he is the same as the one filing the new plat, and persons who
may have purchased in accordance with the prior plat would not be eliminated.
Also, the rights of the public in dedicated streets, alleys, parks, etc., would have to
be considered. See TNs 24.01.01 and 24.01.05.
PLATS AND STREETS
REASON 30 TO DENY:
IN ORDER TO RELEASE A LAND RESTRICTION ALL OWNERS WITHIN A
SUBDIVISION MUST EXECUTE A RELEASE OF THE LAND RESTRICTION.
1. The word "Park," written upon a parcel of land designated on a plat in accordance with
which lots are sold, implies that such parcel is dedicated for park purposes; and the sale of
lots with reference to such plat, where the lots are separated from it only by a street,
carries with it the right on the part of the grantees to have the parcel used for public park
purposes only. FLORIDA EAST COAST RY. CO. v. WORLEY 38 So. 618,49 Fla. 297.
2. An agreement to allow apartment units was unenforceable and void where the deed
restriction required single family homes and all of the property owners did not execute
subsequent agreement. Harwick v. Indian Creek Country Club, 142 So 2d 128 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1962.
3. The written acquiescence by owner-subdivider to Dade County Commission could not
bind or waive the rights of other parties to the agreement created by the restrictive
covenants. Tolar v. Meve, 96 So 2d 554 (Fla. 3d 1957)
4. A restriction imposed alike upon all the lots of a block or tract of land cannot be
released to one purchaser or his grantee without the consent of the other purchasers, or
their grantees, for whose benefit it was imposed. Thompson on Real Property Section
31 73 (4'h ed. 1 962)
5. Where residential lot owners were beneficiaries of covenants, which had been recorded
by subdivider, and which prohibited sale of alcoholic beverages, and no release of
restrictions was obtained from subdivider or residential lot owners in subdivision, release
or modification of restrictions by owners of lots used for bar business was a nullity. Gercas
v. Davis, 188 So.2d 9Fla.App. 1966.
A TITLE EXAMINER MUST PRESUME THAT A CONVENTIONAL PRIVATE LAND
RESTRICTION CONTINUES TO ENCUMBER THE LAND UNLESS IT HAS BEEN
RELEASED OF RECORD BY ALL PARTIES HAVING THE RIGHT OF ENFORCEMENT.
(See Document 1 attached)
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004
- 26 -
Page 26 of 37
A title examiner must presume that a conventional private restrictive
covenant continues to encumber the land unless it has been released of
record by all parties having the right of enforcement. a
When restrictions are imposed either by a subdivision plat or by deed as
part of a plan for a restricted subdivision, each grantee of any part of the
land within the plat or plan has a right to enforce them.
3 Patton and Palomar on Land Titles § 609 (3d ed.)
(TREATISE)
Patton and Palomar on Land Titles
Joyce Palomar
Part 3. Encumbrances And Title Defects
Chapter 11. Encumbrances*--From Matters Shown By The County Records
§ 609. Restrictive Covenants, Statutes and Ordinances
1. When a restrictive covenant in the chain of title appears to have been intended
to run with the land, a title examiner must presume it continues to encumber the
land unless it has been released of record or otherwise terminated. The mere
existence of a private restrictive covenant is an encumbrance on the title,
justifying a purchaser in rejecting the title as unmarketable, Nelson v. Anderson,
286 lll.App.3d 706. 676 N.E.2d 735 (1997) (title to residential property was
unmerchantable when found to be burdened by restrictive covenant contained in
recorded subdivision plat).
2. When a recorded subdivision plat map contains restrictions on the property's
use and states that they are to run with the land, those restrictions are
enforceable by and against subsequent purchasers of lots in the subdivision.
Kohl v. Leaoullon. 936 P.2d 514 (Alaska 1997) (Owners of lots in a tract of land
subject to a common plan of development have standing to enforce covenants
against adjoining landowners). Citizens for Covenant Compliance v. Anderson,
12 Cal.4th 345, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 898, 906 P.2d 1314 (19951.
Castonguav v. Plourde, 46 Conn.App. 251, 699 A.2d 226 (1 997) (Provision that
developer has right to review and approve architectural plans so as to protect the
view from other lots confers upon other lot owner an absolute right to protection
of the view, and a court, and not the developer, will determine whether a
proposed project provides reasonable protection for the view).
Nelson v. Anderson, 286 lll.App.3d 706, 676 N.E.2d 735 (19971 ("The subdivision
plat was recorded, and the covenants therein run with the land to bind the deeds
of each lot in the subdivision. The violation of such a covenant gives every lot
owner in the subdivision the right to sue to enforce the covenant.").
a
3. When restrictions are imposed either by a subdivision plat or by deed as part
of a plan for a restricted subdivision, each grantee of any part of the land within
the plat or plan has a right to enforce them. Kohl v. Leaoullon, 936 P.2d 514
{Alaska 1997) (Owners of lots in a tract of land subject to a common plan of
development have standing to enforce covenants against adjoining landowners).
Alderson v. Cutting, 163 Cal. 503, 126 P. 157 (1912).
Armstrong v. Leverone, 105 Conn. 464, 136 A. 71 (1927).
Nelson v. Anderson, 286 lll.App.3d 706, 676 N.E.2d 735 (1 997) ("The subdivision
plat was recorded, and the covenants therein run with the land to bind the deeds
of each lot in the subdivision. The violation of such a covenant
covenant.").
Heqna v. Peters, 199 Iowa 259,201 N.W. 803 (1925).
Godlev v. Weisman. 133 Minn. 1, 157 N.W. 71 1 (1916).
Wright v. Pfrimmer, 99 Neb. 447, 156 N.W. 1060 (1916).
Coates v. Cullinqford. 147 App.Div. 39, 131 N.Y.S. 700 (1911).
Noonan v. Cuddigan, 85 R.I. 328, 131 A.2d 241 (1957).
Minner v. Citv of Lynchburg, 204 Va. 180, 129 S.E.2d 673 (1963).
Jubb v. Letterle, 185 W.Va. 239.406 S.E.2d 465 (1991) (each individual property
owner within subdivision acquired the right to enforce restrictive covenants
applicable to common scheme for subdivision).
gives every lot owner in the subdivision the right to sue to enforce the
4.A title examiner must presume that a conventional private restrictive covenant
continues to encumber the land unless it has been released of record by all
parties having the right of enforcement Werner v. Graham, 181 Cal. 174, 183 P.
945 (1919).
French v. Diamond Hill-Jarvis Civic Leaque, 724 S.W.2d 921 (Tex.App.--Fort
Worth 1987) (release of restrictions by majority of property owners empowered
by deed to vote for such a release).
See e.g., Mannweiler v. LaFlamme. 65 Conn.App. 26, 781 A.2d 497 (2001).
Beetem v. Garrison, 129 Md. 664, 99 A. 897 (1917).
Hopkins v. Smith, 162 Mass. 444.38 N.E. 1122 (1894).
Sanderson v. Hidden Vallev Fishing Club, Inc.. 743 S.W.2d 486 (Mo.App.1987);
Lake Wauwanoka, Inc. v. Spain, 622 S.W.2d 309 (Mo.App. 1981); Noel v. Hill,
158 Mo.App. 426, 138 S.W. 364 (191 1).
Morrow v. Hasselman. 69 N.J.Eq. 612, 61 A. 369 (1905).
Postlev v. Kafka, 213 App.Div. 595, 21 1 N.Y.S. 382 (1925).
Fogal v. Swart, 37 Pa.Super. 217 (1908).
See generally 26A C.J.S., Deeds, Q 169.
REASON 31 TO DENY:
IN 1999 MARK HENDRICKSON ADMITTED IN WRITING THAT THERE IS ACCESS TO 0
THE LAKE AND ALSO DENIED THE SANCTUARY HOA THE RIGHT TO ACCESS THE
LAKE THROUGH PRESERVE TRACT U-3.
1. On July 6, 1999, the City Forester sent a letter to the Sanctuary HOA advising:
“There are five (5) drainage easements around the lake. The easements are 12’ wide so
that heavy equipment and personnel can gain access to all drainage facilities, including the
lake.” The letter continues: “I have enclosed a copy of the Tract “U-3” (Upland Presewe)
(formerly Tract “0-6”) language. The language does not prohibit nature trails, but is
otherwise very restrictive. An access for lake maintenance equipment is out of the
question.” (See Document 1 attached)
- 27 -
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004 Page 27 of 37
July 6, 1999
Ms. Beverley Jamason
The Best in Property Management
P.O. Box 301 54
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420
Re: The Sancm PUD - Access to Lake
Dear Ms. Jamason:
I recently Visited the Sanctuary community to review the proposed trail through the upland
preserve next to the lake that Advanced Aquatics had partially flagged. After reviewing your
January 29,1999 facsimile, field conditions and the approved Sanctuary PUD plans, I can
understand your lake maintenance dilemma.
There are five (5) drainage easements around the lake. The easements are 12' wide so that heavy
equipment and personnel cau gain access to all drainage facilities, including the lake. Normally,
certain landscaping and fencing are allowed in easements because they can be removed and
replaced or opened in emergencies. If obstructions occur in any easement that prevents general
maintenance access, I would suggest working with the all property owners to resolve this issue.
In the field, I also noticed that some property owners are installing landscaping within the 20'
wide lake maintenance easement. The City permitted the developer to install clusters of Cypress
trees around the lake, but access around the lake remained unobstructed. I would caution the
Association about allowing property owners to landscape off their property for the same reasons
as I discussed above.
I have enclosed a copy of the Tract "U-3" upland preserve (formerly Tract "0-6") language. The
language does not prohibit nature trails, but otherwise is very restrictive. An access for lake
metenance equipment is out of the question. The City also has concerns about the potential
long term abuse by children and landscape maintenance crews, unless a raised five-foot wide
boardwalk with rails can be built to direct all pedestrian traffic from the sidewalk to the lake
maintenance easement. The City feels a boardwalk would be user fiiendly for all ages, and would
be the environmentally correct approach to transverse this area. If the Association is interested in
the boardwalk concept, the remaining location of the trail should be flagged, and an application
for administrative approval by the City should be submitted with the boardwalk construction
plans.
If I can be of further assistance, please feel fiee to contact me at 776-1064.
Sincerely,
n
Mark I. Hendrickson
City Forester
cc: Jack Hanson, Building Official
Tammy Jacobs, City Engineer
..
REASON 32 TO DENY:
5 PLATTED DRAINAGE EASEMENTS IN THE SANCTUARY ALREADY EXIST WHICH
PROVIDE LEGAL AND UNDENIABLE ACCESS TO THE LAKE FOR MAINTENANCE
PURPOSES.
THE SANCTUARY DECLARATION OF COVENANTS PROVIDES A MAINTENANCE
EASEMENT OVER THE 5 DRAINAGE EASEMENTS.
1. The Sanctuary Plats contain 5 Drainage Easements that run from the Subdivision
streets to the Lake. (See Document 1 attached)
2. MAINTENANCE ACCESS IS PROVIDED. The Sanctuary Declaration of Covenants
Section 2.10 states: “Furthermore, a non-exclusive easement is hereby created over all
utility easements and drainage easements located on any Lot, whether now existing or
hereafter created, including but not limited to all utility easements and drainage easements
contained on the Plats, which easement is in favor of the Association, including its agents
and designees, in perpetuity, to utilize for all proper purposes of the Association.” (See
Document 2 attached)
3. MAINTENANCE ACCESS IS PROVIDED. The Sanctuary Declaration Section 5.04
states: “The surface water management and drainage system for the property is part of
one integrated system throughout the project. An Easement is hereby created over the
Common Properties and over all Drainage Easements throughout the Property
whether now or hereafter existing, in favor of the Association, including its agents or other
designees, for surface water drainage and for the installation and maintenance of the
surface water management and drainage system for the prope rty...” (See Document 3
attached)
- 28 -
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 28 of 37
EXHIBIT 17: PLAT SHOWING LAKE EASEMENTS
3 1 14 45th St. Suite 3 West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 (56 11 640-71M
2 .OJ
-1-
9 8
10
D. Conducting recreation, sport, craft and cultural programs of interest to Ownerr, including the= frrilieS, teMntS,
guests and invitees;
PrarectAon ant! lacority, includtng, hat not 1lmAted
to, the employment of stationary or pavoLllng soeurlty guards wit9in the Property and operation of a guardhouse;
F. rmaincenance of electranfc and other -surveillance devices, Lncluding security gates;
G. Installation, operation and naintenance of cable television facilities, or other comnlcation systems throughout
the Property;
H. Such other services as aro avehorlzed in the Artfcles or Bylaws;
I. Cleanup, landscaping, maintenance, dredging, water treatment or other care of canals, roadr or other property (public or private) adjacent to the Property to the extent uuch car0 would, fr. the reasonable determination of the Board, be beneficial to the Property and to the extent that the Association has been granted
the right to so care for the affected ptog.rty by the mer thereof or other person autharized TO grant such right, includirq, bur. not
limited to, any appropriate qovrrMzenta1 aurhorlty;
J. Emergency repairs and other work on tots reasonably necessary tor the proper aaintenance and operation of the Project.
5.04 Surface Water Icanasmnt and DraiMae. The surface water aanngonsnr and drainage eystem for the Property Is part of one integrated system througnout the Project. An easemonf 11
hereby created over the ColllllQn Propertin and over all minaga easeaenrs throcmout the Propmrty whether nar or hereafter existing, in favor of the Association, lncludlng its agents or
other designees, for surface water drainage and for the
installation and maintmancm of the surface watmr managmnont end drainage oy0t.r for tho Property: provided, however, that such easement shall be subject to Irnprovementa constructed within the Property as permitted by controlling qovorrrental authority from time to the. The Assacistion shall laintain the entire surface uater management and drainage rysten within the Property lnclading any portion thereof owned but not maintained by the South Plotida Water Mansgement District. notwithstinding tho foregoing, the Asrocletion will have the right but not tha obligetion, to maintain any Property which is owned and/or Wntainod by the South Florida Hater Hanagenbent District or any other controlling govemaontal authority Subject to thc requirements of the South Florida Water Management Dietrkt.
E.
14
REASON 33 TO DENY:
THE SANCTUARY PLAT FORBIDS ANY TREES OR STRUCTURES TO BE PLACE IN
DRAINAGE EASEMENTS
Surveyor’s Note #3 on each Plat states: “NO STRUCTURES OR TREES SHALL BE
PLACED WITHIN DRAINAGE EASEMENTS”. (See Document 1 attached)
Every easement carries with it by implication the right, sometimes called a
secondary easement, of doing what is reasonably necessary for the full enjoyment
of the easement itself.
Where the owners of a 20 foot express easement for ingress and egress were granted the
easement by language of the deed that was not ambiguous and that had made it clear that
the whole strip was set aside for ingress and egress, the servient owner had no right to
place permanent obstructions in the form of mobile homes, concrete pads, and a shed in
the described easement area that would prevent the dominant tenement owner from freely
passing over any part of the easement, and considerations about what might have been
reasonably necessary for the dominant tenement owner’s use or needs were not
appropriate or relevant. Kaqan v. West, 677 So. 2d 905, 21 Fla. L. Weeklv D1557 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. APP. 4th Dist. 19962, reh’g denied,
-29-
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004 Page 29 of 37
w
w
E 0 u
J -J 4 rn Ji cn
I- 3 z
W 0:
I- U S I-
a
_.- --. - ..--. -. . --._
- .- .-
rua IC
cn z
l- 0 u a
'I rt
z 0 0
Y
8
r U a * i
E.
U a ul
REASON 34 TO DENY:
THE SANCTUARY HOA AFFIRMED ITS RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE LAKE.
THE SANCTUARY HOA HAS ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS ATTEMPTED TO
ENFORCE ITS RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE LAKE.
1. On December 9, 1998 the HOA sent a letter to the Lot 135 owners and Lot 89 owners
advising:
“Your Board of Directors has asked me to write concerning the drainage easement which
runs between lot 135 & 89. This landscaping must be removed to allow access for the lake
maintenance company.” On February 23, 2000 and April 28, 2000 the HOA sent letters to
Lot 135 owners advising that the Association has a right of access to the Lake and the
easement must be kept clear. (See Document 1 attached for all HOA Letters)
2. On January 29, 1999 the HOA sent a letter to the City advising:
”Apparently the city gave the owner approval for this five years ago without checking with
the Association or any easement rights. Although the Association does have the authority
it would rather not request the owner to remove the fence (and also the pool as code
requires a fence around a pool) unless all other possibilities have been exhausted.’’
3. On September 8, 2000 HOA sent a letter to Lot 63 owners advising:
“Your Board of Directors has requested that we send you a letter regarding the easement
that runs along the side of your property. You may or not be aware of the fact that the
easement must be kept free and clear for access at all times. This is not a board decision
but is required as per the attached page from the plat map for your association.” Letters
were also sent on March 27,2001 and May 24,2001.
4. On September 8,2000 HOA sent a letter to Lot 59,68, 139 & 140 owners advising:
“Your Board of Directors has requested that we send you a letter regarding the easement
that runs along the side of your property. You may or not be aware of the fact that the
easement must be kept free and clear for access at all times. This is not a board decision
but is required as per the attached page from the plat map for your association.”
-30-
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 30 of 37
I I
Sanctuary Homeowners Associati~n, Inc. P.0. Box 30154
PaIm Beach Gardens, Florida 33420
561/792-2934 fax 792-1932
mcember9.1998
Mr. & Mrs, John & Denise Hein 135 Satinwood Lane Palm 8each Gardens, FL 33410
Ms. Ching Lam 89satinwMKi Lane Palm Beach Gardens. FL 33410
RE: TheSanduaryHOA,lncl Drainage Easemnt
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hein & Ma Lam:
The Sanctuary Homeowners Association, Inc.
P.O. BQX 32932
Palm ]Beach Gardens, Florida 33420
56V626-0917 fax 626-7143
L1-
September 8,2000
Mr- & Mrs. Scott & Nancy Propper
63 Prin- Lane Palm Beach Gsrzjens, FL 33410
Dear Mr. 4% Mrs. Pmpper -
Your Board af Direstam has requested that we send you a MIEN regarding the easement that runs abng the side ofyowpmpedy. You may or may not be aware ofthe
kt that the c6asement must be kept- and dear br sums at all times- This isnot a
board decision but is required as perthe atcacfred page fromthe plat map fwyout asrcociation.
t
Sanctuary PBG Homeowners Association, Inc. P.O. Bax 32932
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33420
561/626-0917 fax 626-7143
March 27.2001
Re: Easements
063
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Roppcr: -
Your Board af Directors has requested that 1 write to you and state that the pool heater
that you have installed appoors to be placed on the associati's -. Pkuse revjByI your
homeownersarrvgr and if the unit is on tfteeamnent it must be rwmoud
Shouki you have any questions or require furthcr assistance plcase feel free to cantact our
office & the above number.
Sincerely,
on behaif of !hctmy PB6, HOA, Inc
6
Sanctum PBG Homeownem Association, Inc. ”. .
~ J P.O. Box 32932
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33420
561/626-0917 fa 626-7143
May 24.2001
Mr. Ut Mrr. Scott & Nprncy Propper
63 Princewood Lnnc
Polm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Easements
063
Dear Allr. & Mrs. Propper:
Despite a prior request, as of this date the pool heat- has not been moved and remains over
an easement- Please see enclosed yw approved ARB request that states the requirements
that the approval WlQS based upon. YOUF approved pequest ab showed the heater in a
different iocatian
out Association is pumitt- you 20 days to move the heater. Foih on you. part to have
this work performed by June 14,2001 mil result in your Assocktion havingihewwk
perfd and billing ywr for SUWL
1 suggest that you contact the cosn~any that instolled the pool to find out why the rncjd
the heater without notm the Assuciatkm to obTain upproud for the charrge.
Shwld you have uny questiotts or require further assisttmce please feel free to contact our
offiottkcktxnfenumkr.
L
I I-
The Sanctuary Homeowners Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 30154
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33420
561/792-2934 fa 792-1932
Febnary 23,2000
Re: LakeAccess
As per OUT meeting, 1 have feviewed your assoCiation documents and have endosed a couple of sections of the CWAaraPcm, pages 9,10 & 14 which pertain to the association
having the right to the easements for pwposes of maintaining the lake,
Should you -with this please make amngmem to clear an access route for ttre Jake maintemnoe company. shwid yau not agree with this, piease respond, in Hlriting,
within fourteen (14) davs afthe date ofthii letterwith your reasons why the association may
not u~8 the easement for lake B-.
Please feel free to confact my office at the above number should you hpm any questions wreguire additional infomratiion. -.
Sirrcerely,
The Sanctuary Homemmers Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 32932
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33420
*ne 561/626-0917 fax 626-7143
Sent via facsimile
Mr. Robert Oglesby, PA one cleamke canter, su’i 1400
25OAusEralian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Fkxida
Re: AssociationEasements
135 Satinwood taneKampine
Oear Mr. Oglesby:
As per ourtelephone comersation mgardirrg the above- The board discussed thii matter and at this time has made the reo#rmerrd- that all the - be kept free and dear of any obstndons so a8 to allawprpmptaccclas fbr any future needs.
questions or require additional infwmatson.
sincerelpr,
Beverley Jarrrason 8 Karen ank, Pmperty MmaQers
Please fd free to contad my oflice at the above number should you have any
-.
RL$LL
on behalfofThe Sanctuary HOA, Inc.
a
a
0
,
The Sanctuary Homeowners Association, Inc.
P.0. Box 32932
Palm Beach Gardens, F101id.a 33420
561/626-0917 fax 626-7143
September 8,2000
Ms. Barbara Bentron
68princewoodLane Palm Beach Gardens. FL 33410
- Dear Ms. Benton:
Your Board of Diredors has requested that- send you a tetbrregardirtg the easement that NIW along the sids of your p-. You may or may not be awam ofthe
fact that the emement rrmsf bekept free and clear for access at ali times. Thii is nota board decision but is required asper the atEached page from the plat map for your
association.
Please feel freo tu -42 OUT affioe at the above number should you haw any questions or require further assistance.
Sincerely,
-E?--
Beverley Jamason & Kanen Zink, fbperty Ma- on behalf of The Sanctuary HOA, Inc
EndOSUre
The Sanctuazy Homeowners Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 32932
Palm. Beach Gardens, Hdda 33420
561/626-0917 fax 626-7143
SepWnber 8,2000
Mr. & Mrs, Scott 8 Michelle suskauer
139 Oakwuod Lane Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Easementlnformation
139
Dear Mr- & Mrs. Suskauer.
Your Board &Directors has mquested that we send yau a letter regardii the
-that rum ahg the side of your property. Yw may ff may not be aware ofthe
fad that the emsemnt muat be kept- and cleartbrnorwrrc at all times; This is not a bard decision but is fequ'hed as perthe atEached pagefrosnthe plat map fixyour
association.
The Sanctuary Homeowners Association, Xnc
P-0- Box 32932
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33420
561/626-0917 fax 626-7143
September 8,2000
Mr, 4% Mrs- Steven 8, Carol Moms & Purcell
59 Princewood Lane
Palm Beach Gardens. FL. 33410
Re: Easement Information
059
Dear Mr- 8, Mrs. Morris 2% Purcefl:
Your Board of Directors has requested that we send you 8 letter regarding the
easement that runs along the side of ymr propem- You may or may not be aware of the
fad that the easement must he kept free and clear for acceSS at all times- This is not a
board decision but is required as per the attached page from the plat map for your
association-
If I have sent this Ietter to you in emr ptease note same on this letter and mail or fax
back to my ofice-'l am using the plat map for your community and it may be that the easement is your nexkdoor-neighbors and not yours. Or, if you are not sure if you have an
easement please call my office to set up a time to stop by and review the plats and maps
that we have here-
Please feel free to contad our office at the above number should you have any questions or require further assistance.
Sincereiy ,
WET-
Severley Jamason & Karen Zink, Property Managers
on behalf of The Sancbary HOA, Inc.
Enclosure
LL nu, WD:
U* Eo
The Sanctuary Homeowners Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 32932
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33420
561/626-0917 fax 626-7143
September 8,2000
Mr. 8 Mrs. Frank & Marguerite Compiani
140 OaM Lane
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Easement Information
140
Dear Mr- & Mrs- Compiani: .
Your Board of Directors has requested that w send you a letter regarding the
easement that runs along the side of your property. You may or may not be aware of the
fact that the easement must be kept free and clear for access at all times. This is not a board decision but is required as per the attached page from the plat map for your
association.
If I have sent this letter to you in error please note same on this letter and mail or fax
back to my office. I am using the plat map for your community and it may be that the
easement is your nextdoor-neighbors and not yours. Or, if you are not sure if you have an
easement please call my office to set up a time to stop by and review the plats and wps that we have here.
Please feel free to contact our flee at the above number should you have any questions or requim further assistance.
Sincerely,
Beverley Jamason & Karen Zink, Property Managers on behalf of The Sanctuary HOA, Inc.
Enclosure
REGARDING THE DRAINAGE AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS TO THE LAKE
THE ENGINEER AFFIRMED THE EXISTENCE OF THE EASEMENTS AND
MAINTENANCE ACCESS.
1. On June 6, 2000 the HOA hired Sinclair Engineering Company to inspect the
Subdivision lake access easements and to determine which of the five lake access
easements were suitable to sustain vehicle access to the Lake. (See Document 1
attached)
2. On July 14, 2000 the Engineer advised the HOA:
a. “There are five lake access easements platted between the units indicated on the
adjoining sketch.”
b. “The lake bank at all five locations would require regrading to provide proper vehicle
access to the lake.”
c. “There is considerable development within four of the five easements. Specifically
trees and or fences have been installed in the easements with the exception of the
easement between Units 135 and 89.”
d. “The lake access easement between Units 135 and 89 is the most suitable for
access to the lake”. a
I City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004
- 31 -
Page 31 of 37
To: The Board of Directon
From:
Subject: Lake Access Easements
Date: August4.2OoO
Bevetley Jamason & Karen ZnkK
MEMORANDUM
Dear Board Members:
Please find attached the engineers report for the lake access easements.
-. Sinclair
Engineering Company 0
July 14,2000
Ms. Karen Zink
The Best in Property Management
P.O. Box 30 154
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420
RE: Lake Access Easements - Sanctuary Home Owners Association, 2505
Flamingo Road, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
Dear Ms. Zink:
Sinclak Engineering Company completed its inspection of the above referenced lake access
easements on June 20,2000.
INTRODUCTION:
Sinclair Engineering Company re eived row request on June 6, 2000 to inspect lake access
easements and related items at the above referenced property.
Specifically, you requested that we determine which of the five lake access easements were suitable
to sustain vehicle We.
PROCEDURES:
1) Individual easements between homes as indicated on the attached site sketch were
examined for evidence of capability to sustain traffic.
2) A report detailing our findings was prepared.
OBSERVATIONS:
1) The community can generally be described as a being comprised of single family homes
which were constructed around a lake.
2) There were five lake access easements platted between the units indicated on the adjoining
sketch.
Sanctuary HOA, Page 2
July 14,2000
OBSERVATIONS (Continued):
3) The access easement between Units 135 and 89 appeared to be relatively unobstructed with
the exception of the presence of the water meter for Unit 89 being approximately 2’ to 3’
within the easement and plants on Residence 135 partly obstructed the easement. The lake
bank in this area would require regrading to provide proper vehicular access. However, the
soils in the vicinity of the access appeared to be stable.
4) The access easement between Units 139 and 140 was partially obstructed by the presence of
the water meters for both units, as well as a telephone cable box located at the fiont of the
residences. Further, there was a fence in the rear yard of Unit 139, which obstructed the
easement, as well as a tree in the rear yard of Unit 140, which further obstructed the
easement. Examination of the lake bank revealed that it was washed out in the area of this
easement. Specifically, the lake bank was steeply pitched at the edge of the sod and would
need to be regraded for vehicular access to the lake.
5) The access between Units 58 and 59 was completely obstructed with fences on both
properties. Further, there was a fence near the front of each residence as well as near the
rear of each residence, which had been constructed in the easement area. Examination of
the lake bank area adjacent to this easement indicated that sandbags had been installed in an
effort to stabiIize it. Therefore regrading in this area would be required to provide proper
vehicle access to the lake.
6) Examination of the access easement between Unit 62 and 63 revealed the presence of
landscaping between the two buildings as well as fences which had been installed near the
rear of the buildings and at the rear property line of Building 63. The ground adjacent to the
lake was fairly steep and would require regrading of the lake bank and the yard areas to
provide access to the lake.
7) Examination of the access easement between Units 68 and 69 revealed that heavy
landscaping had been placed between the two buildings in the easement area Shrubs had
grown in the easement blocking access to the lake.
CONCLUSIONS:
Based on field observed conditions and related experience, the conclusions of this investigation are
as follows:
1) The lake bank at all five access locations would require regrading to provide proper vehicle
access to the lake.
2) There is considerable development within four of the five easements. Specifically trees and
or fences have been installed in the easements with the exception of the easement between
Units 135 and 89.
Sanctuary HOA, Page 3
July 14,2000
CONCLUSIONS (continued):
3) The lake access easement between Units 135 and 89 is the most suitable easement for
accesstothelake.
CLOSURE:
Please accept my gratitude for selecting us for your engineering needs and feel fiee to contact this
office for fiuther information as the need arises.
Job: 00-06004
EXHIBIT 1: VIEW OF STREET ACCESS TO EASEMENT BETWEEN UNIT 135 AND
UNIT 89
E- B, 20- 2000..
EXHIBIT 2: VIEW OF LANDSCAPING BETWEEN UNIT 135 AND UNIT 89
EXHIBIT 3: VIEW OF LAKE BANK BETWEEN UNIT 135 AND UNIT 89
EXHIBIT 4: PROFILE VIEW OF LAKE BANK AT UNIT 135 AND UNIT 89 !.
3 I 14 45th St. Suite 3 West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 (561) 640-7144
EXHIBIT 5: VIEW OF STREET ENTRANCE TO EASEMENT BETWEEN UNIT 140
AND UNIT 139
EXHIBIT 6: ALTERNATE VIEW OF FENCE AND LANDSCAPE IN EASEMENT
BETWEEN UNIT 140 AND UNIT 139
EXHIBIT 7: VIEW OF LAKE BANK AT EASEMENT BETWEEN UNIT 140 AND
UNIT 139
EXHIBIT 8: STREET VIEW OF ACCESS TO EASEMENT BETWEEN UNIT 59 AND,
UNIT 58
a
EXHIBIT 9: VIEW OF LAKE BANK ADJACENT TO EASEMENT BETWEEN UNIT
59 AND UNIT 58
EXHIBIT 10: STREET VIEW OF EASEMENT BETWEEN UNIT 63 AND UNIT 62
a
EXHIBIT 11: VIEW OF FENCING BETWEEN UNIT 63 AND UNIT 62
EXHIBIT 12: VIEW OF FENCE AT REAR OF UNIT 63
31 14 45th St. Suite 3 West Palm Beach. Florida 33407 (561) 640-7144
EXHIBIT 13: STREET VIEW OF EASEMENT BETWEEN UNIT 69 AND UNIT 68
EXHIBIT 14: VIEW OF LANDSCAPING BETWEEN UNIT 69 AND UNIT 68
EXHIBIT 15: ALTERNATE VIEW OF LANDSCAPING AT REAR OF 68
EXHIBIT 16: VIEW OF LAKE BANK ADJACENT TO THE EASEMENT BETWEEN
UNIT 69 AND UNIT 68
31 14 45th St. Suite 3 West Palm Beach. Florida 33407 (561) 640-7144
EXHIBIT 17: PLAT SHOWING LAKE EASEMENTS
L
REASON 36 TO DENY:
THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT STATES THAT PRESERVE TRACT U-3 IS A VIABLE
C OM M U N ITY.
1. On February 9, 2004 C&N Environmental Consultants, Inc. prepared an Environmental
Assessment of Preserve Tract U-3. (See Document 1 attached)
a. “Wildlife species anticipated to occur in the subject property include Florida mouse,
gopher frog, and Eastern Indigo snake”.
b. “Floral species anticipated to occur include large-flowered rosemary, Florida blazing
star, pineland lily and tiny polygala”.
c. “Pileated woodpecker, downy woodpecker, and red-bellied woodpecker are known
to utilize the habitat with in the subject property”.
d. “A red-bellied woodpecker and barred owl were observed in the oak hammock”.
e. Passerine species including morning dove, mockingbird and blue jay were also
observed”.
f. “Gray squirrel was also observed in the preserve”.
g. “The .90 acre oak hammock preserve is a viable community, which provides habitat
for numerous avian species including pileated woodpecker, downy woodpecker,
red-bellied woodpecker, barred owl, and other wildlife species”.
h. “Native Plants observed in the Upland Preserve as listed by the Environmental
Assessment include: South Florida Slash Pine, Live Oak, Sabal Palm, Saltbush,
Beauty Berry, Sawgrass, Gallberry, Rusty Lyonia, Wax Myrtle, Wild Coffee,
Myrsine, Saw Palmetto, Virginia Creeper, Greenbriar and Grape Vine”. 0
THERE ARE GOPHER TORTOISES IN THE PRESERVE.
(See Document 2 attached)
(See Photographs)
- 32 -
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 32 of 37
The Sanctuary
0.90-Acre Oak Hammock Preserve
Environmental Assessment
February 9,2004
Sea Breeze Community Management Services, Inc
8259 N. Military Trail Ste 11
Palm Bch Cbmkns, FL 33410
prepared by:
CBtNEmrinmmd~IaC.
612 N. Omge Ave., Ste. A-10
Jupiter, FL 33458
.l.O INTRODUCIXON
The saamafy- Association, Inc. has requested an environmental a!sessment.be
conducted on a 0.909Cae oak)urmmoclrpreserve located within The sanctuary P.U.D. ddential
development. TheI#rrcelislocatedaplnarcrmate ly 2 miles north of PGA Boulevard and 0.5 mile
west ofProspePity Farms Road onH- Lane, sectiorr29, Township 41 !hut& Range 43 East,
Palm Beach Gardens Florida (Figure 1, Site Location hp), (Figure 2, Site Map).
2.0 VEGETATION
Vegetation on the 0.- pmel was khtdied -d- 'ed in the field to provide a tow
mmexation of canopy species located widh the field d to ident@ and chactmm the
characterized for tbe purpose of mapping 8ccofifing to habitat and cover types using F;lorida
Land Use Cover and Fontts Gk@ixz&n svstem, (FLUCCS), Florida hptment of
TranSp0rtat;l 'on, Januray 1999, Level III (Figure 3). "7.w fillowing is a Ctesctipton detach
veg~ecommunityincludingacrenge~chco~to~map.
~canopyspecieson~prncet u~andgnwndcoversbrala~also
F'LUCCS 421
-. - +os81 acres
FLUCCS 434 PineHardwoodFlanrmock - 4-0.09 acres
3.0 Soils
3
4.0 ENDANGEREDIIT€REAW SPECIES
The Florida Fish arad Wddlifk hue mat^ 'on comrmssl ' 'on (ppwcc), Florida of
j4grhhm aed Consumar Services (FDA), and the United stabes Fish aad Wm Senice o mainbin lists of species slated for protectian under Chapter 39, F.A.C. and United
States hdmgemd species Act of 1973. Prior to site survey, a &exatme search was conctucfedto
'anof
the pbabk geographic distribution of listed wils speoies and the probabi(ity of their
ocammceis usedtoidenti@the species. Wil- species anticipatedto o~cutinthe subject
parcel include Florida mouse (P~m~~floridanus), gapha hg (ROM areoZata)y and Eastern
flowered rosemary (Comadltna gmnd@ora), Florida blazing star (I;- oMinpue), pineland
'lily (LiZiwn catesbai), arsd tiny polygala (Po&gda dh).
determinelistwi species with apotential for occmmce on the subjedparceL Deteanmstl
indigo - (Dgmurcbn ma& t?o#pmi). Fld species anti- to occut include lftrge-
5.0 CONCLUSION
T
TABLE 1
An Incornpiebe Inventory of Native Plants olwenred within The Oak Hammock
Shrubs
TABLE 2
Invasive Exotics Obscured -in the Oak Hammock
Florida Exotic Pest Plant Councils' 2003 List of Invasive Species
stenotaphrum secundatum St Augustine grass
T-ntia zebnna wandering-jew
REASON 37 TO DENY:
THE SANCTUARY HOA’s JUSTIFICATION FOR ACCESS TO THE LAKE IS NOT
FACTUAL.
PETITIONER STATES THAT THERE IS NO ACCESS ALTHOUGH PETITIONER
AFFIRMED ITS ACCESS IN WRITING ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.
1. The HOA applied to the City to create a Lake Access Tract. HOA’s justification to the
City for the Lake Access Tract is set forth in Section 1 of the Application. It states:
“JUSTIFICATION- HOA has responsibility to maintain the Lake, however no provisions in
the documents to get to the lake to maintain it”. This statement directly conflicts with:
a. The 5 Drainage Easements shown on Plat 1 and Plat 2;
b. Declaration Section 2.10 and 5.04;
c. Mark Hendrickson’s 1999 opinion;
d. HOA’s letters to Lot Owners advising of it’s right of lake access; and
e. The report from the HOA Engineer.
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004
- 33 -
Page 33 of 37
REASON 38 TO DENY:
THE FACT THAT THE SANCTUARY HAS EXCESS PRESERVE LANDS DOES NOT
JUSTIFY THE DESTRUCTION OF ANY PRESERVE LANDS.
1. Staff asserts that the Sanctuary has excess Preserve Lands so it is OK to destroy
some.
2. Staff asserts that the removal of Preserve Tract U-3 lands from preservation status has
no effect on the overall preserved land calculations of the Sanctuary.
3. City Code requires a minimum of preserve lands. If a community has more than the
minimum that does not enable the community to petition to destroy preserve lands.
Whether there are 50 or 100 acres of preserve lands is irrelevant. Once they are preserved
they are preserved.
4. Staffs opinion would justify other communities to remove preserve lands over the 25%
minimum.
5. Sec. 78-250. Preserve area requirements.
(a) required preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
Minimum requirements. The minimum requirements listed below shall apply to all
(1) Preserve area designations.
a. A minimum of 25 percent of environmentally significant lands, intact with
canopy, understory and ground cover, such as sand pine scrub, xeric oak
forest, hardwood hammock, and pine flatwoods, shall be set aside as a
presetve.
b.
shall be preserved.
The city council shall designate the portion of significant lands which
HAVING EXCESS PRESERVE LANDS IN A SUBDIVISION DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE
DESTRUCTION OF ANY REMAINING PRESERVE LANDS IN THE SUBDIVISION.
- 34 -
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 34 of 37
REASON 39 TO DENY:
CITY STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PUD AMENDMENT IS
FLAWED AND INACCURATE
(See Document 1 attached)
- 35 -
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 35 of 37
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
-Agenda Cover Memorandum ___
Date Prepared: August 10,2004
Meeting Date: September 7,2004
Ordinance 35,2004
Resolution 176,2004
SnbiectYApenda Item
Ordinance 35,2004 and Resolution 176,2004: The Sanctuary PBG HOA, Inc. Lake Access
Tract
First Reading: A request by Sherry Hyman, Agent, on behalf of The Sanctuary PBG
Homeowners Association (HOA), to allow for an amendment to the Sanctuary Planned Unit
Development (PUD). The proposed plan would allow for lake access though an upland preserve
by creating an open space tract. The PUD is 81.9 acres in size and located on the north side of
Hood Road approximately 1,500 feet west of Prosperity
[XI Recommendation to APPROVE
[ ] Recommendation to DENY
Reviewed by:
Planning a zoning Director
City Attorney
Christine Tatum, Esq.
Development Compliance:
BaharebKeshavarz, AICP
Growth Management
Administrator
*
Charles K. wy AICP
Approved By:
City Manager:
Ronald M. Ferris
Advertised:
Date: Aug. 23,2004 I P-. PB Post
Budget Acctk I NA [ ] Not Required
Affected parti-:
[ ]Notified
[ Not Required
City Council Action:
: IApProVed
] App. w/ conditions
[ ]Denied
[ 1Continuedto:
Attachments:
8 Table1
8 ApprovedSitePlan
ProposedSitePlan
8 Proposed Replat of
8 LBF&HMemo
8 Complaint letters (1 1)
0 Ordinaace35,2004
8 Resolution 176,2004
(entatged)
Tract U-3
I
h -- .- I
Date Prepared: Angad 10,2004
Meeting Date: September 7,2004
Ordinance 35,2004
Resolution 176,2004
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Gardens through Ordinance 22,
‘ts on 82 acres. City Council
modification to the model home
ugh Resolution 66,1996, which
ed a utility easement to the northwest
approved the mitigationhestoration
sections of the project that was subj
*. nfnreserve acreaq.
Q PUD Plat NO. 2 W~S % Tract ‘V-3” that exis
Resolution 66,1996, the replat of “The Sanctuary”
diveloper during the construction of the
The approved Sanctuary Site Plan
Tracts.” Two “drainage tracts are for wetland preserve
When the City required the replat of “0-6”, the
owned by the Sanctuary
residential lots and the HOA owned 0.81
known as Heatherwood Lane), and lies between lots #65 and M6. The proposed lake access
tract through Tract “U-3” would allow the HOA to construct aough the native
two “drainage tracts’ are for lake access. None of the four cc -trads * 93 ever
ed on the mroved dats for
.~bred o/\ Tfd U-3
as r~i+rtjdlofi=
Tract “U-3” is accessed off of Princewood Lane (previously
1 Date Prepared: August 10,2004
Meeting Date: September 7,2004 -
vegetation fifteen (15) feet wide and two hundred (200) feet long in ord2wde v&&
-0 the five-acre lake. The proposed path will connect to the existing twenty (20) foot wide
lake maintenance easement, which encompasses the lake, for weekly maintenance of the lake
tract and potentially any larger lake maintenance needs. &odd revs
vegetation to be removed for lake access.
_Dartcted u-e to itc( to allow
The proposed path has been field adjusted and surveyed
removed with this alignment. No listed endangerdthreatened speciessere obsdbased on
to minimize impacts to adjacent home owners and trees. No Oak trees are proposed to be
the HOA’s environmental assessment dated February 9, 2004. The City’s Environmentar
Consultant, Jim Schnelle, has reviewed the environm@al assessment and has agreed with
5-
Due to the insignificant
t reduce the upland preserve acreage below
The City and the San tten objections to any alteration *
ents including-
that one of those
the issue muding the proposed lake access tract.
OA is not planning to utilize the entire 15 feet
or any clearing of the pres
owners to either side of the
has filed a law suit against
To address some of the resi
of the lake access tract has been selected to
Occasionally, the lake maintenance contractor n
for a pathway at this time, and it will be constructed of mulch. The proposed location and width
HOA has stated that it intends to install a ss the fiont of the path
traffic, and place a sign within the path the path is “For lake
only. No dogs or pets allowed.”
LANDUSE ANDZONING bnacr c ;+, 64% 3 ~omp Pien -
The subject site has a zoning designation of Planned Unit Development Overlay with
)30 &Arot-Cl’orl dlbd.
underlying zoning of Residential Low (FU-2). The Land Use designation of the PUD is
Page 3
Date Prepared: August 10,2004
Meeting Date: September 7,2004
Ordinance 35,2004
Resolution 176,2004
Residential-Low (RL). The subject site has a gross density of 2.25 units per acre, which is
consistent with the underlying zoning. Please see attached Table 1 for details on surrounding
\ \
3
: >
policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. In this case, the best management practice requires
and & since no the priority be given to improve the lake accessmmtect the fauna
listed species are in harms way. The following goals, objectives and policies indicate the
specific consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed amendment:
Infrastructure Element
Goal 4.C.1.: Provide adequate city-wide drainag anagement for all property
in the City. L+;+ dou na
Objective 6.1.9.: The City, through its
improvements needed within the City
Conservation Element
Policy 6.1.2.1.: The C
management practices are
CONCURRENCY
LAW5 40 mn-FfrA7/0l
The already
improvements are required as a result of the proposed PUD arnmdmmt.
PROJECT DETAILS
Site Access
Pedestrian access and connectivity have been provided throughout the site through a system of
sidewalks. The proposed lake access pathway through the preserve will connect the existing 20-
foot wide lake maintenance easement to existing sidewalks within Princewood Lane right-of-
way, which is adjacent to Tract U-3. This will allow for improved access to the upland preserve
Q. cLcn Lnk
page4 q&L L-1 ‘11
bloc&
Date Prepared: August 10,2004
Meetlng Date: September 7,2004
Ordinance 35,2004 Ofrn L/wf* Resolution 176,2004
/xcr, arc ha br U36 #d Fmif/W* scumt/Cz /"4
and- * * The proposed access tract will also replace the two drainage tracts shown on
the site plan, but never platted.
0
5
Drainage TIAU dmhuy e.aencnk
The four 15-foot wide ''drainaPe tracts" shown on the amroved site ~lan do not exist.
Thew arc
five 1Zfoot wide drainage easements Dlatted on Drivate which tie the lake to the ovd
water management system. These ea.wents are dedicated to the HOA for drainage proposes,
which is different than lake maintenance. The infrastructure located within the drainage
needed.
d y I!
t
On May 25, 2004, the P1 d Appeals Board held a public hearing for this $r! petition. The Board's moti : denial to City Council failed because the vote was T; three - three. There was no
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Section 78-563(d), entitled Access to lake maintenance tract, reauires Dermanent mm to 8ccess
atting. The minimum preserve
8 + requirements setforth in the City's Land Development Re&= have been exr.eeuka-1 3
$m &,lakes and water bodies, acceptable to the City enheer. tbrou
Q, I!
Lo< _IICIY?LQ. Rather than eliminating the entire 0.81 &res fiom-its current preserve land stat& staff
believes converting a mall portion of this preserve to a more useful open space tract, which is
necessary to facilitate the lake maintenance access, is the best alternative.
Planned Unit
drainage and lake maintenance operation.
Date Prepared: August 10,2004
Meeting Date: September 7,2004
Ordinance 35,2004
Resolution 176,2004
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 35,2004 and Resolution 176,2004 with the following
condition:
1. The lake access pathway shall not be constructed until the replat for Tract U-3 has been
approved by the City Council and publicly recorded (City ForesterPlanning & Zoning).
o!!
c
Page 6
REASON 40 TO DENY:
CITY STAFF LEFT OUT IMPORTANT ISSUES DURING ITS MAY, 2004 P&Z
PRESENTATION.
1. Mr. Hendrickson did not advise the P&Z Commission that Preserve Tract U-3 was
created by City mandate and as mitigation for the destruction of preserve lands in the
Sanctuary.
2. Mr. Hendrickson advised the P&Z Commission that the cutting of the Preserve was
good as it serves as a firebreak.
a. The City Code states not to construct roads for firebreaks.
(See Document 1 attached)
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004
- 36 -
Page 36 of 37
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.133 1
Fax 561.776.9294
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
June 3,2004
Tala1 Benothman, Principal Planner
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Sanctuary Subdivision Preserve Area Tract U-3
Dear Ta la1 :
I would like to address the following issues with you. These issues arose during the May
25, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
A. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS NOT PROPERLY ADVISED THAT
PRESERVE TRACT U-3 WAS CREATED AS A RESULT OF AN ENFOREMENT
ACTION AGAINST PULTE AND AS MITIGATION REQUIRED BY THE CITY.
1. The City required that Tract 0-6 be preserved as mitigation for Pulte’s destruction of
preserved lands in another area of the Sanctuary. Pulte destroyed natural vegetation
and as a result of this destruction the City mandated that Tract 0-6 become a preserve.
This fact should have been made known to the Commission.
2. The attached Memo (Exhibit “A”) from the City Planning Staff to the Mayor and City
Council dated April 18, 1996 states that Pulte Homes dumped soil/muck/wood debris
along portions of the west and north sides of the Sanctuary project. On July 6, 1995 the
City issued a Notice of Violation to Pulte Homes stemming from the dumping without a
permit in an environmental area. On November 4, 1993 Pulte petitioned to amend the
PUD by adding utility easement and landscaping to the disturbed preserve area. The
Memo continues: “REGARDLESS, ACREAGE IS BEING SUBTRACTED FROM
AREAS THE CITY REGARDED AS PRESERVE LAND. STAFF FEELS THAT THERE
SHOULD BE COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS OF PRESERVE ACREAGE IN THE
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE TRACT, UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENTS.”
3. The Memo continues: “...staff recommends the following conditions: TRACT 0-
6 WITHIN THE SANCTUARY PLAT NO. 2 SHALL BE REPLATTED TO CHANGE
THE TRACT FROM OPEN SPACE STATUS TO PRESERVE STATUS.”
4. On April 11 1996 the City passed RESOLUTION 66, 1996. Resolution Condition 1
required that Plat 2 Tract “0-6” be replatted. Resolution Condition 2 required that Plat 2
“Tract 0-6” be replatted to change the tract from open space status to preserve status.
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
Tala1 Benothman
June 3,2004
Page 2
5. On July 29, 1996 Plat 2 Tract “0-6” was replatted by TRACT “U-3” (“Upland
Preserve”) as legally identified on THE SANCTUARY - REPLAT OF TRACT “0-6”
(“RE PLAT”).
6. The Subdivision Developer, HOA, Mayor of the City of Palm Beach Gardens (“City”),
City Clerk and City Engineer joined in and executed the REPLAT.
7. The Dedication on the REPLAT reads: “THIS CONSERVATION AREA MAY IN NO
WAY BE ALTERED FROM ITS NATURAL STATE. ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED WITHIN
THE CONSERVATION AREA INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO,
CONSTRUCTION OR PLACING OF BUILDINGS ON OR ABOVE THE GROUND;
DUMPING OR PLACING SOIL OR OTHER SUBSTANCES SUCH AS TRASH;
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF EXOTIC/NUlSANCE VEGETATION REMOVAL; ANY
OTHER ACTIVITIES DETRIMENTAL TO DRAINAGE, FLOOD CONTROL, WATER
CONSERVATIONl EROSION CONTROL, OR FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
CONSERVATION OR PRESERVATION.”
REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF TREES; SHRUBS OR OTHER VEGETATION-
8. Mr. Hendrickson asserts that the Sanctuary has excess Preserved Lands. He claims
that the removal of Tract U-3 lands from preservation status has no effect on the overall
preserved land calculations of the Subdivision. This argument has no relationship to the
fact that the Preserve was created by an enforcement action and as a penalty; as a
direct result of the Developer destroying Preserved lands. Whether there are 50 acres
of preserve or 100 acres is irrelevant. The City mandated that Tract U-3 be a Preserve.
9. Furthermore please see Exhibit “B”: This February 8, 1996 letter from the Principal
Planner of the City states: “THE OAK HAMMOCK PRESERVE ACREAGE IS
DIFFERENT THAN THE APPROVED SITE PLAN, THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM, BUT
THE CITY WILL BE REQUIRING THIS ENTIRE AREA TO BE REFLECTED AS
“PRESERVE” ON THE PLAT RATHER THAN OPEN SPACE”.
IO. Furthermore, please see Exhibit “C”. These November 6 & 7, 1995 letters assert that
Pulte will be mitigating for the destruction of the preserve. The mitigation involved
preserving Tract 0-6 as Tract U-3.
11 .The City, by its actions, has responsibility for the placement of the above-described
Restrictive Covenant on Tract U-3. Many Owners in the Sanctuary relied on the actions
of the City in purchasing their properties.
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.1331
Fax 561.776.9294
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
Tala1 Benothman
June 3,2004
Page 3
B. PULTE, THE DEVELOPER, DID NOT INITIATE THE PRESERVATION OF TRACT
0-6.
1. Mr. Hendrickson made the assertion that Puke applied for Preserve status on Tract
0-6 pursuant to an Application by the Developer. Enclosed is a copy of the Application
Exhibit “D”. There is no request to preserve Tract 0-6. This fact should have been made
known to the Commission. The Preservation of Tract 0-6 came as a result of the City’s
actions and imposed demands upon the Developer. The City should uphold its prior
actions and enforce its previous mandates.
C. DURING THE APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION, THE APPLICANT CONTINUALLY
STATEDTHATTHECHANGEOFTRACT0-6TOPRESERVESTATUSWASA
“MISTAKE”.
1. It was unbelievable that City representatives sat idle while the Petitioner and its
supporters stated over and over that the City mistakenly allowed the REPLAT. The
provided Exhibit “E” should eliminate all questions concerning mistake. Mr. Hendrickson
was personally involved in the REPLAT. This fact should have been made known to the
Commission. The City required the REPLAT, oversaw its creation and executed it. Is
this a mistake? I expected the City to assert that the REPLAT was not a mistake, but a
mandate of the City.
D. DURING THE APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION, THE APPLICANT CONTINUALLY
STATED THAT THE CHANGE OF TRACT 0-6 TO PRESERVE STATUS WAS
ONLY TO BE DONE ON A PORTlON OF TRACT 0-6.
1. I researched all files in the City’s possession and there is no reference to “portion”.
This fact should have been made known to the Commission. I expected the City to
assert that the REPLAT was not to be a portion of Tract 0-6, but all of Tract 0-6. Again
the City representatives did not object to the Applicant’s claims.
E. IT WAS STATED BY MR. HENDRICKSON THAT THOSE WHO OBJECTED ONLY
OBJECTED TO THE FIRST APPLICATION, BUT NOT TO THE SECOND
APPLICATION.
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561 382.133 1
Fax 561.776.9294
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
Tala1 Benothman
June 3,2004
Page 4
1. This is incorrect. The objections in the possession of the City state: “I object to any
alteration or any clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the
Sanctuary. I object to any removal or destruction of tress, shrubs or other vegetation
and desire the Preserve to remain as is.” This fact should have been made known to the
Commission.
F. MR. HENDRICKSON FAILED TO STATE THAT All OWNERS OF PROPERTY
SURROUNDING TRACT U-3 OBJECTED TO THE APPLICATION.
1. The assertion was made that only a few of the total Owners in the Sanctuary
objected. The enclosed plat shows the Owners that executed Objections to the
Application. This fact should have been made known to the Commission. There are
many other residents that object to this destruction of the Preserve; however is it really
necessary to involve more Owners? Do you want 50 Owners at the hearings to speak?
If the written objections are not enough then the Owners will appear at the next hearing.
The Owners that live near the Preserve are in total agreement that this should not be
done. See Exhibit ”F”.
I am pleased that 3 Commissioners voted against the actions of the HOA. I request that
a rehearing be given so that more accurate information could be provided to the
Commission prior to its vote. The Members of the P&Z Commission should revisit this
issue and take a careful look at all the facts.
Since re1 y ,
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Michael M. Gfesser, Esq.
Cc: Craig Kunkle, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission
Barry Present, Vice Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission
Joel Channing, Planning & Zoning Commission
Dennis Solomon, Planning & Zoning Commission
Michael T. Panczak, Planning & Zoning Commission
Douglas Pennell, Planning & Zoning Commission
Randolf Hansen, Planning & Zoning Commission
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.133 1
Fax 561.776.9294
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
June 3,2004
Talal Benothman, Principal Planner
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Sanctuary Subdivision Conservation Area Tract U-3
Dear Talal:
As you are aware, the HOA and the City are moving forward with violating my rights as
a property owner. I have stated for several years that there are Gopher Tortoises in
Tract U-3. They are often spotted in Tract U-3, along with owls, woodpeckers, snakes,
squirrels, turtles, etc. That is not unusual since Tract U-3 is a platted PRESERVE, as
such was required by the City in an enforcement action against Puke, the original
developer. There are environmentalists who agree that a 15 foot roadway through a
preserve allowing vehicular traffic, dogs and pedestrians will partially destroy the
Preserve and the habitat of these birds, animals and reptiles. Although the HOA will
provide a chain in an attempt to prohibit access, it is doubtful that a chain will be an
effective means of keeping people, dogs and children from entering the Preserve.
Mr. Hendrickson, when asked by the P&Z Commission if clearing the Preserve would
harm Tract U-3, stated that the clearing was acceptable, and that it will provide a
firebreak. This is an awful answer for someone who is a City Forester. Do we live in
Yellowstone? It is ridiculous to desire a firebreak in a small preserve. Any objective
person would state that this clearing could in fact have a detrimental effect on the
Preserve and the habitat of the animals therein. Enclosed are pictures of 2 Gopher
Tortoises in the Preserve. The Environmental Assessment of Tract U-3 is inaccurate.
Since re1 y ,
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Michael M. Gfesser, Esq.
Cc: Craig Kunkle, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission
Barry Present, Vice Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission
Joel Channing, Planning & Zoning Commission
Dennis Solomon, Planning & Zoning Commission
Michael T. Panczak, Planning & Zoning Commission
Douglas Pennell, Planning & Zoning Commission
Randolf Hansen, Planning & Zoning Commission
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.133 1
Fax 561.776.9294
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
I
June 8,2004
Tala1 Benothman, Principal Planner
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Sanctuary Subdivision Conservation Area Tract U-3
Dear Ta la1 :
I have examined the files at the City and there is no doubt that Tract 0-6 was converted
to Tract U-3 and designated a Preserve as mitigation for Pulte’s destruction of a
preserved area located in the Northwest corner of the Sanctuary. Do not let anyone try
to convince you otherwise.
Please review the attached documents.
) Sincerely,
I Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Michael M. Gfesser, Esq.
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.1331
Fax 561.776.9294
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
April 20, 2004
Mark I. Hendrickson, City Forester
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Sanctuary Subdivision Conservation Area
Dear Mark:
As you are aware I am trying to preserve a small yet valuable conservation area. Despite
the 5 access easement to the lake, the Association with the City’s blessing has decided to
create a Lake Maintenance Easement. The purpose of the Easement is to get a motor
vehicle and a boat to the Lake. In addition, there is talk about running electrical power to
the Lake. On July 6, 1999 you wrote a letter whereby you state,”An access for lake
maintenance equipment is out of the question.”
The Plat Dedication clearly reads: “THIS CONSERVATION AREA MAY IN NO WAY BE
ALTERED FROM ITS NATURAL STATE. ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED WITHIN THE
CONSERVATION AREA INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, CONSTRUCTION OR
PLACING OF BUILDINGS ON OR ABOVE THE GROUND; DUMPING OR PLACING
SOIL OR OTHER SUBSTANCES SUCH AS TRASH; REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF
TREES; SHRUBS OR OTHER VEGETATION.. .’I Approval of the Application clearly
violates this Restrictive Covenant. Unfortunately, your decision to violate the existing
Restrictive Covenant places a substantial amount of liability on the City. You are unfamiliar
with Florida Case Law regarding Restrictive Covenants and you failed to adequately
research Restrictive Covenants and their enforceability. There are many Florida Court
decisions and treaties written on the subject. If you failed to become familiar with this area
of law then you have done a disservice to the City.
Aside from violating the Restrictive Covenant on the Upland Preserve, the City is violating
its own Code.
Section 102-2 of the City Code provides “The Purpose of this chapter is to preserve and
protect the ecological values and functions of the city’s natural resources and
environmentally significant lands from alterations that would result in the loss or significant
degradation of these habitats, thereby increasing the amount of and quality of open space,
and to ensure the protection and conservation of these natural resources and
environmentally significant lands in perpetuity.” The approval of the Application violates
this.
The City has not required nor has it received all documents required by Sec. 102-8.
The City has not complied with Sec.102-9 (5) a
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.133 1
Fax 561.882.2412
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
The City will violate Sec. 102-10 (2) b. This requires the preserve to be “preserved in
viable condition, with intact canopy, understory, and ground cover and maintained without
infringement by drainage or utility easements”. The 15 foot clearing will not keep the
canopy, understory or ground cover intact. Also, utility easements are not allowed. The
running of electrical power over the Access Easement will amount to it being a utility
easement. If FPL is in any involved inn the electrical permitting, it will require an easement.
The City will violate Sec. 102-10 (3). The alteration in the Preserve is limited to “The
construction of Boardwalks, pervious walkways, and other passive recreational or
educational facilities”. The proposed 15 foot Lake Access Easement does not fall under
this. It is certainly not a boardwalk and a walkway by definition excludes motorized
vehicles.
The City will violate Sec. 102-10 (5) e. If the City approves the Lake Access Easement, the
Preserve will be severed in two and the uplands will not be preserved intact. .
Sec. 102-1 1 (c) requires appropriate Deed Restrictions to be placed on the Preserve,
which Restrictions are granted in perpetuity. This was accomplished with the Restrictive
Covenant placed on the Preserve by Plat.
Sec. 102-1 1 (d) requires perpetual maintenance and protection of the Preserve.
Sec 102-1 1 (d) (5) requires retention of the Preserve by the Association and the Preserve
shall remain undivided. Each lot owner’s interest shall be preserved, protected and
maintained through recorded covenants running with the land. Title shall be
unencumbered for the perpetual benefit of the public. All future use shall be consistent with
the preservation space intent and purpose.
The Environmental Assessment does not comply with all of the requirements of the City
Code.
I have filed a lawsuit against the Sanctuary PBG Homeowners Association, Inc. to enforce
the Restrictive Covenant placed upon the Property. The lawsuit does not include the City. I
request that the Application submitted by the Association be tabled until outcome of the
lawsuit. If the City approves the Application I will need to amend the lawsuit.
Since re I y ,
Michael M. Gfesser, Esq.
Cc: Charles Wu
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.133 1
Fax 561.882.2412
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
June 1,2004
Talal Benothman, Principal Planner
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Sanctuary Subdivision Conservation Area Tract U-3
Dear Talal:
Enclosed please find the Complaint filed against the Sanctuary HOA. This Complaint is
being amended to include the Directors of the Association.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Since re I y ,
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Michael M. Gfesser, Esq.
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.1331
Fax 561.776.9294
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
May 21 , 2003
Tala1 Benothman, Principal Planner
City Of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Sanctuary Subdivision Conservation Area Tract U-3
Dear Ms. Benothman:
Enclosed please find the letter and Exhibits provided to Charles Wu. The City Forester
is trying to circumvent regulatory agencies, recorded restrictions and approved plats. I
do not believe that this issue should wind up in the court system.
If there is anything else that you need please advise.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Since re1 y ,
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Michael M. Gfesser, Esq.
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 56 1 382.1 33 1
Fax 561.882.2412
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
August 29,2003
Mark I. Hendrickson, City Forester
City Of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Sanctuary Subdivision Conservation Area
Dear Mark:
Thank you for your letter of August 19, 2003. I assume that you are aware that there is a
higher authority than the Code of the City of Palm Beach Gardens. There are Statutes and
case law handed down by Judges and Jurists that specifically contradict the proposed
actions of the HOA and the City of Palm Beach Gardens. Your letter and all of your logic
fail to acknowledge the Restrictive Covenant on Tract U-3 and the legal rights of those
affected by it. Case Law in the State of Florida has consistently upheld restrictive
covenants and I am sure that this case will be no exception. In the case at hand the Site
Plan, the Army Corps Permit and the SFWMD Permit all indicate that Tract U-3 was to be
preserved. The Mayor of Palm Beach Gardens and the City Engineer executed a Plat that
specifically states that Tract U-3 cannot be altered. The City cannot take those embedded
legal rights away by public hearings. The owners of property pursuant to the Plat acquired
legal rights that cannot be wiped out by a PUD amendment. Restrictive covenants don’t
just come and go they are permanent and run with the land.
The City should consult a competent attorney concerning the restrictive covenant that
reads: “THIS CONSERVATION AREA MAY IN NO WAY BE ALTERED FROM ITS
NATURAL STATE. ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AREA
INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, CONSTRUCTION OR PLACING OF BUILDINGS
ON OR ABOVE THE GROUND; DUMPING OR PLACING SOIL OR OTHER
SUBSTANCES SUCH AS TRASH; REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF TREES; SHRUBS
OR OTHER VEGETATION ...’I The fact that you believe that the City can authorize the
violation of this restrictive covenant is dead wrong, particularly when the City demanded it.
Since re I y ,
Michael M. Gfesser, Esq.
Cc: Charles Wu
Christine Tatum
Tala1 Benothman
Beverly Jamason
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.1331
Fax 561.882.2412
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
October 9,2003
Mark I. Hendrickson, City Forester
City Of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Sanctuary Subdivision Upland Preserve Tract U-3
Dear Mark:
The Application submitted to the City of Palm Beach Gardens contains several errors and
inaccuracies. It is interesting on how you are precluding the full dissemination of
information on this matter. From review of the Association files it is apparent that you are
“coaching” them through this.
You have left out important information in your presentation of this matter to the Planning
and Zoning Commission. You should revisit this and advise the Commission of all of the
facts.
Sincerely,
Michael M. Gfesser, Esq.
Cc: Charles Wu
Christine Tatum
Tala1 Benothman
Beverly Jamason
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 56 1.882.1 33 1
Fax 561.882.2412
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
October 7,2003
Mark I. Hendrickson, City Forester
City Of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Sanctuary Subdivision Upland Preserve
Dear Mark:
I have not received a response to my last letter advising you that the City may not violate
the restrictive covenant contained on the Plat. I have conducted extensive legal research
into the restrictive covenant existing on the Plat of Tract U-3. I can assure you that your
actions will violate the legal rights of each and every Lot Owner that purchase Lots in the
Sanctuary.
Not only will Lot Owners be entitled to uphold the restrictive covenant and prevent the
City’s violation of it, but the City will be liable for fees and damages.
Since re1 y ,
Michael M. Gfesser, Esq.
Cc: Charles Wu
Christine Tatum
Tala1 Benothman
Beverly Jamason
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 56 1.882.1 33 1
Fax 561.882.2412
REASON 41 TO DENY:
THE P&Z COMMISSION DID NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD
AMENDMENT.
1. 3 of 6 COMMISSIONERS WERE ABLE TO ASCERTAIN THE SERIOUS
IMPLICATIONS OF THE PUD AMENDMENT.
2. IN A 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION I WAS ABLE TO CONVINCE HALF OF THE
COMMISSION THAT THE PUD AMENDMENT IS UNLAWFUL AND NONCOMPLIANT.
3. WITH THIS DOCUMENT AND YOUR ABILITY TO RESEARCH THE CITY CODE AND
COMP PLAN ALL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOULD VOTE TO DENY THE PUD
AMENDMENT.
APPROVAL OF AN UNPAVED ROAD IN A PRESERVE IS BAD PRECEDENT.
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004
- 37 -
Page 37 of 37
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
September 20,2004
City Council Members
City Of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Sanctuary Preserve Area Tract U-3
Dear City Council:
For 4 years I have been fighting to keep mall pre le intact a m ndat d by the City
Code and City Comp Plan. Allof my arguments are written and mandated by the City
Code and Comp Plan.
1. UPHOLD THE LAND RESTRICTION: The Platted Land Restriction imposed by the
City of Palm Beach Gardens in 1996 as mitigation for the destruction of preserve lands
by the Developer states:
“THIS CONSERVATION AREA MAY IN NO WAY BE ALTERED FROM ITS NATURAL STATE.
ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AREA INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED
TO, CONSTRUCTION OR PLACING OF BUILDINGS ON OR ABOVE THE GROUND; DUMPING OR
PLACING SOIL OR OTHER SUBSTANCES SUCH AS TRASH; REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF
VEGETATION REMOVAL; ANY OTHER ACTIVITIES DETRIMENTAL TO DRAINAGE, FLOOD
CONTROL, WATER CONSERVATION, EROSION CONTROL, OR FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
CONSERVATION OR PRESERVATION.”
TREES; SHRUBS OR OTHER VEGETATION- WITH THE EXCEPTION OF EXOTlClNUlSANCE
2. UPHOLD THE CITY CODE: There is no City Code or Comp Plan Policy which
allows the removal of a Preserve from “Preserve Status”. In fact the opposite is true.
Section 78-251 of the City Code does not allow any action for any partition of a
Preserve. A Preserve must remain “preserved, protected and maintained”. The
proposed PUD Amendment is in direct contradiction with:
Sec. 78-251 Management plan
(5) a. “Such preserve area shall remain undivided, and a lot unit owner or any other person
not be able to bring any action for partition or division of any part thereof. Each lot or unit owner’s
undivided interest shall be preserved, protected, and maintained through recorded covenants
running with the land or a developer’s agreement. Title of such area shall be encumbered for the
perpetual benefit of the public generally, and all future use shall be consistent with the intent and
purpose of the preservation of open space, as provided in the city’s comprehensive plan and
he rein .”
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.1331
Fax 561.776.9294
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
I
City Council Members
September 21 , 2004
Page 2
3. UPHOLD THE CITY CODE: The PUD Amendment which removes a portion of
Preserve Tract U-3 from Preserve status violates at least 15 Sections of the City Code
which mandates that preserves be unaltered and undivided.
4. UPHOLD THE COMP PLAN: The PUD Amendment which removes a portion of
Preserve Tract U-3 from Preserve status violates at least 8 Policies of the Comp Plan
which mandates that preserves be unaltered and undivided.
On September 28, 2004 you will be asked to approve a PUD Amendment to the
Sanctuary Subdivision. The Amendment removes a portion of Preserve Tract U-3 from
preserve status so that a 15 foot wide unpaved road can be constructed in the
Preserve. The question to you is whether City Council will remove a portion of Preserve
Tract and approve a road in a preserve area. Not only is Preserve Tract U-3 to be
maintained in its natural state, but the cutting of trees, shrubs and other vegetation is
prohibited by the City mandated Plat, the City Code and the City Comp Plan.
The City Staff can not justify its actions. Please review the City Staff Recommendation.
The City Staff stretches to justify its actions and winds up stating that there is “excess
preserve lands” in the community and that the action “is consistent with the overall
intent of the goals, objectives and policies”. Good, but does that justify violating 23
Sections of the City Code and Comp Plan?
I prepared the enclosed binder to provide you with the “rest of the story.” Please review
it as it provides at least 41 reasons to deny the PUD Amendment. You will note that
access already exists to the Lake so the PUD Amendment is not needed.
Look at the attached letter from Mr. Hendrickson. In 1999 he affirmed the access to the
Lake and stated “An access for lake maintenance is out of the question”.
Sincerelv.
\
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.1331
Fax 561.776.9294
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500N. MIrnARY TRAn PALM BEACH GARDENS FumlDA3341-
July 6,1999
Ms. Beverley Jamason
The Best in Property Management
P.O. Box 30154
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420
Re: ThesanctUaryPUD-AccesktoLake
Dear Ms. Jamason:
I recently visited the Sanctuary community to review the proposed trail through the upland
preserve next to the lake that Advanced Aquatics had partially flagged. ARer reviewing your
January 29,1999 fbimde, field conditions and the approved Sanctuary PUD plans, I can
undtxstad your Me maintenan cedilemma.
Tlmeare fipe (5) drainage easements znuum?thelake. The easements are 12'wide so that heavy
~awlperscrmref cau gain acccss to aU. ~~cs, inchding the lake. Normally,
certainlandsc@hgandf~ are allowed measemenis because they canberemovedand
maintenance access, I would suggest working with the all property owners to resolve this issue.
~~oropenedinemerg~cies. Ifobstructionsoccurinanyeaseanentthatpreventsgd
In the field, I also noticed that some pperty owpers are iastalling landscaping within the 20'
widelakesmhtmme easement. The City parmitted the developer to install clusters of Cypress
trees around the lake, but EUX'RSS around the lake remained unobstructed. I would caution the
Association about dowing property omas to lands~ape offtheir Propeayfor the same reasons
aSIdiscussed above.
I have enclosed a copy of the Tract 21-3" upland preserve (formerly Tract "0-6") language. The
language does not prohibit nature trails, but otherwise is very restrictive. An access for lake
equipiner is out of the question. The City also has concerns about the potential
=use by children and landscape maintenan ce crews, unless a raised five-fmt wide
boardwallc with rails can be built to direct all pedestrian trafEc fiom the sidewalk to the lake
maintenance easement The City feels a boardwalk would be user fiiendy for all ages, and would
befheenvironmentallycorrect~to~ersethisarea, IftheAsmaatl 'onisinterestedin the boardwalk concept, the rednaining location of the trail should be flagged, and 8tl appIi4an
..
r"
for administrative approval by the City should be submitted with the boardwalk construction
plans. e
If1 can be of fiuther assistance, please feel fi-ee to contact me at 776-1064.
Sincerely,
d
Mark I. Hesldrickson
City Forester
8 b 2 a
F
n
cn 8
4
w 0
7
I
‘0
TABLE OF CONTENTS I
1. Exhibit 1. PHOTOGRAPHS & HISTORY OF PRESERVE TRACT U-3.
a. IN 1996, THE CITY CREATED PRESERVE TRACT U-3 AS MITIGATION FOR
PRESERVE DESTRUCTION.
b. (Reason 1 To Deny)
2. Exhibit 2. HISTORY OF PRESERVE TRACT U-3.
a. THE CITY COUNCIL PLACED A PERMANENT LAND RESTRICTION ON
b. (Reason 2 To Deny)
PRESERVE TRACT U-3.
3. Exhibit 3. CITY CODE VIOLATIONS.
a. THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT WHICH REMOVES A PORTION OF
PRESERVE TRACT U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES AT LEAST 15
SECTIONS OF THE CITY CODE.
PRESERVE FROM PRESERVE STATUS.
b. THERE IS NO CITY CODE SECTION THAT ALLOWS REMOVAL OF A
c. (Reasons 3 - 17 To Deny)
4. Exhibit 4. COMP PLAN VIOLATIONS.
a. THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT WHICH REMOVES A PORTION OF
PRESERVE TRACT U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES AT LEAST 8 POLICIES
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN.
b. THERE IS NO COMP PLAN POLICY THAT ALLOWS REMOVAL OF A
PRESERVE FROM PRESERVE STATUS.
c. (Reasons 18 - 25 To Deny)
5. Exhibit 5. SANCTUARY HOMEOWNERS.
a. All 11 OWNERS OF PROPERTY SURROUNDING PRESERVE TRACT U-3
RELIED ON THE CITY’S ACTIONS AND HAVE OBJECTED IN WRITING TO THE PUD
AMENDMENT.
I
b. (Reason 26 To Deny)
6. Exhibit 6. VIOLATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHTS.
a. APPROVAL OF AN UNPAVED ROAD IN A CONSERVATION AREA VIOLATES
THE RIGHTS OF THE SANCTUARY HOMEOWNERS WHO RELIED ON THE LAND
RESTRICTION WHEN PURCHASING THEIR HOMES.
b. (Reason 27 To Deny)
7. Exhibit 7. MATTERS OF LAW.
a. THE CITY’S PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING PRESERVE TRACT U-3 FROM
PRESERVE STATUS WILL NOT AFFECT THE LAND RESTRICTION CREATED BY THE
CITY IN THE 1996 REPLAT.
b. (Reason 28 To Deny)
I -2-
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 2 of 37
I-
8. Exhibit 8. REPLATTING DOES NOT ELIMINATE LAND RESTRICTIONS.
a. THE CITY’S REPLAT OF PRESERVE TRACT U-3 WILL NOT TERMINATE THE
b. (Reason 29 To Deny)
PRESERVE TRACT U-3 CREATED BY THE CITY IN 1996.
9. Exhibit 9. HOMEOWNERS MUST RELEASE LAND RESTRICTIONS.
a. IN ORDER TO RELEASE A LAND RESTRICTION IN A SUBDIVISION ALL
OWNERS WITHIN A SUBDIVISION MUST EXECUTE A RELEASE OF THE LAND
RESTR I CTI ON.
b. (Reason 30 To Deny)
IO. Exhibit IO. LAKE ACCESS EXISTS/ THE PUD AMENDMENT IS NOT NEEDED.
IS ACCESS TO THE LAKE THROUGH PLATTED DRAINAGE EASEMENTS.
a. IN 1999, MARK HENDRICKSON ADVISED THE HOA IN WRITING THAT THERE
b. (Reason 31 To Deny)
11. Exhibit 11. LAKE ACCESS EXISTS/ THE PUD AMENDMENT IS NOT NEEDED.
UNNECESSARY.
a. THERE IS ACCESS TO THE LAKE SO THE PUD AMENDMENT IS
b. (Reason 32 To Deny)
12. Exhibit 12. THE 5 DRAINAGE EASEMENTS.
EASEMENTS TO BE BLOCKED BY TREES AND OTHER STRUCTURES.
a. THE SANCTUARY HOA HAS ALLOWED THE 5 PLATTED LAKE ACCESS
b. (Reason 33 To Deny)
13. Exhibit 13. THE 5 DRAINAGE EASEMENTS.
a. THE SANCTUARY HOA ADMITTED IN WRITING THAT IT HAS A RlGH
ACCESS TO THE LAKE OVER THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS TO MAINTAIN
LAKE.
b. (Reason 34 To Deny)
’ OF
THE
14.Exhibit 14. THE 5 DRAINAGE EASEMENTS.
REGARDING THE DRAINAGE AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS TO THE LAKE.
a. THE SANCTUARY HOA HIRED AN ENGINEER TO RENDER AN OPINION
b. (Reason 35 To Deny)
15. Exhibit 15. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS.
a. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT STATES THAT PRESERVE TRACT U-3 IS A
VIABLE COMMUNITY. “WILDLIFE SPECIES ANTICIPATED TO OCCUR IN THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY INCLUDE FLORIDA MOUSE, GOPHER FROG, AND EASTERN
INDIGO SNAKE”.
b. (Reason 36 To Deny)
16. Exhibit 16. INACCURATE JUSTIFICATION FOR PUD AMENDMENT.
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004
-3-
Page 3 of 37
a. THE PETITIONER’S JUSTIFICATION FOR ACCESS TO THE LAKE IS NOT
b. (Reason 37 To Deny)
FACTUAL.
17. Exhibit 17. INACCURATE JUSTIFICATION FOR PUD AMENDMENT.
a. CITY STAFF ATTEMPTS TO JUSTIFY THE PUD AMENDMENT BY RELIANCE
ON THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTION THAT THERE ARE EXCESS PRESERVE LANDS
IN THE SUBDIVISION.
b. (Reason 38 To Deny)
18. Exhibit 18. CITY STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION IS FLAWED AND INACCURATE.
a. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL CONTAINS INCONSISTENCIES,
IS INCOMPLETE AND DISREGARDS CITY CODE AND CITY COMP PLAN.
b. (Reason 39 To Deny)
19. Exhibit 19. MAY, 2004 PLANNING & ZONING HEARING.
PRESENTATION.
a. CITY STAFF LEFT OUT IMPORTANT ISSUES DURING ITS MAY, 2004 P&Z
b. (Reason 40 To Deny)
20. Exhibit 20. P& Z COMMISSION DID NOT APPROVE.
AMENDMENT.
a. THE P&Z COMMISSION DID NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD
b. (Reason 41 To Deny)
21. Exhibit 21. CONCLUSION.
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PUD AMENDMENT WHICH WILL ALLOW:
a. THERE IS NO LEGAL, FACTUAL, STATUTORY, CODE OR POLICY
i) THE PLACEMENT OF A ROAD IN PRESERVE TRACT U-3;
ii) THE CONSTRUCTION OF UTILITIES IN PRESERVE TRACT U-3;
iii) THE REMOVAL OF PRESERVE TRACT U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS; AND
iv)THE VIOLATION OF THE PRESERVE TRACT U-3 LAND RESTRICTION
WHICH PROHIBITS LAND ALTERATION, AND THE REMOVAL OR
DESTRUCTION OF TREES; SHRUBS OR OTHER VEGETATION.
b. APPROVAL OF AN UNPAVED ROAD IN A CONSERVATION AREA IS BAD
PRECEDENT FOR THE CITY.
c. THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT TAKES A PORTION OF PRESERVE
TRACT U-3 OUT OF PRESERVE STATUS SO THAT A 15 FOOT UNPAVED ROAD CAN
BE CONSTRUCTED.
d. THERE ARE AT LEAST 40 REASONS TO DENY THE PUD AMENDMENT.
e. THERE ARE NO REASONS TO APPROVE IT
-4-
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004 Page 4 of 37
CITY CODE MANDATES THAT PRESERVE TRACT U-3 BE PRESERVED AS IT
SUPPORTS SPECIES LISTED AS ENDANGERED OR THREATENED. THERE ARE
WOODPECKERS, OWLS, GOPHER TORTOISES AND SNAKES IN TRACT U-3.
CONSIDERED FOR
PLANNED UNIT
CITY OF PALM BEACH
GARDENS
DEVELOPMENT
I
“WILDLIFE SPECIES ANTICIPATED TO OCCUR IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
Page 5 of 37 September 28,2004
. . ,.. ..
0
0
CITY CODE MANDATES THAT PRESERVE TRACT U-3 BE PRESERVED AS IT IS AN
OAK FOREST
City Council Presentation
September 28.2004 Page 6 of 37
REASON 1 TO DENY: I IN 1996 PRESERVE TRACT U-3 WAS CREATED AS A RESULT OF A CITY
ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST DEVELOPER PULTE AND AS MITIGATION AS
REQUIRED BY CITY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL.
1. On July 6, 1995 Mark Hendrickson, City Forester of Palm Beach Gardens (“City”)
issued a Notice of Violation to Pulte due to its dumping in an environmental area without a
permit. (See Document 1 attached)
2. On November 6 & 7, 1995 letters were sent by the City Manager that assert that Pulte
will be mitigating for the destruction of the preserve. The mitigation involved preserving
Tract 0-6 as Preserve Tract U-3. (See Document 2 & 3 attached)
3. On November 13, 1995 the Environmental Consultant states that Developer Pulte
damaged approximately 2.1 1 acres of preserved land while developing the Sanctuary.
(See Document 4 attached)
4. On December 18, 1995 Mark Hendrickson sent Puke a Notice of Violation. In the
Notice he cites the City Code. He states that Pulte violated the Plat restrictions which
prohibit altering the land and prohibit activities in the conservation areas. Mark now is in
favor of altering Preserve Tract U-3 and allowing activities prohibited by the Plat, the City
Code and the City Comp Plan. This is selective enforcement of the City Code and Comp
Plan. (See Document 5 attached)
5. On February 2, 1996 James Schnelle advised Mark Hendrickson that 2.69 acres were
impacted by Puke’s actions. (See Document 6 attached)
6. The February 8, 1996 letter from the Principal Planner of the City states: “THE OAK
HAMMOCK PRESERVE ACREAGE IS DIFFERENT THAN THE APPROVED SITE
PLAN, THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM, BUT THE CITY WILL BE REQUIRING THIS ENTIRE
AREA TO BE REFLECTED AS “PRESERVE” ON THE PLAT RATHER THAN OPEN
SPACE”. (See Document 7 attached)
7. On April 11, 1996 City Staff sent the City Council a memo which describes the damage
and the need for mitigation. (See Document 8 attached)
8. The Memo continues: “REGARDLESS, ACREAGE IS BEING SUBTRACTED FROM
AREAS THE CITY REGARDED AS PRESERVE LAND. STAFF FEELS THAT THERE
SHOULD BE COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS OF PRESERVE ACREAGE IN THE
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE TRACT, UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENTS.”
9. The Memo continues: “...staff recommends the following conditions: TRACT 0-6
WITHIN THE SANCTUARY PLAT NO. 2 SHALL BE REPLATTED TO CHANGE THE
TRACT FROM OPEN SPACE STATUS TO PRESERVE STATUS.”
-7-
Cily Council Presentation
September 20.2004 Page 7 of 37
10.On April 11, 1996 the City passed RESOLUTION 66, 1996. (See Document 9 attached)
a. Resolution Condition 1 required that Tract ”0-6” be replatted.
b. Resolution Condition 2 required that Tract “0-6” be replatted to change the tract
from open space status to preserve status.
11.0n July 29, 1996 Tract “0-6” was replatted by TRACT “U-3” as legally identified on
THE SANCTUARY - REPLAT OF TRACT “0-6” (“REPLAT”).
12.Developer Pulte, the HOA, the City Mayor, the City Clerk and the City Engineer
reviewed, amended, approved and executed the REPLAT.
13.On October 25, 1996 the Assistant City Manager imposed a fine of $86,250. (See
Document Pttached)
14.Mr. Hendrickson was personally involved in the Pulte matter and assisted in the
creation of Tract “U-3”.
15. Mr. Hendrickson, who presented the PUD Amendment to the Planning Commission in
May 2004, failed to provide any of this destruction and mitigation information to the
Planning Commission. It is through Mr. Gfesser’s research that any of this information is
available to the City Council. (See Exhibit 19)
16. The City, by its actions, has responsibility for the placement of the above-described
Land Restriction on Preserve Tract U-3. Many Owners in the Sanctuary relied on the
actions of the City in purchasing their properties.
17. Pulte’s destruction of preserve lands was a serious matter.
a. It took approximately 1 year to resolve all of the issues;
b. Pulte reconstructed the damaged preserve area, planted over 1000 plants, and paid
a large fine;
c. Numerous attorneys, planners, environmentalists, engineers and City Staff
members were involved, including Mark Hendrickson; and
d. City Staff and City Council required that Tract “0-6 receive preserve status as
mitigation for Pulte’s destruction of the 2.69 acres of preserve lands.
18. CONCLUSION
a. THE CREATION OF PRESERVE TRACT U-3 WAS MANDATED BY CITY STAFF
AND CITY COUNCIL DUE TO THE DEVELOPER’S DESTRUCTION OF
PRESERVE LAND.
i) CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS;
ii) CITY COMP PLAN REQUIREMENTS;
iii) CITY STAFF REQUIREMENTS, REVIEW AND APPROVAL;
iv) CITY ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS, REVIEW AND APPROVAL;
v) CITY LEGAL COUNSEL REQUIREMENTS, REVIEW AND APPROVAL;
vi) A RECORDED PLAT IN COMPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTES; AND
vii) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION AND APPROVAL.
b. PRESERVE TRACT U-3 WAS CREATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH:
-a-
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 8 of 37
'a4
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS I losQ1 N. MILITARY TRAIL PALM -DENS. MM XM1-
July 6,1995
Mr. Kevin Borlcenhagen
Mte Home Corporation
I350 East Newport Center Drive, Suite 200
Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
VIA FAX AND CERTIFIED MAIL #P 912 110 7! RE:
Dear Mr. Borkenhagen:
The Sanctuary - Western Buffer
The City has not received any information on the above-referenced project as requested m
my June 15, 1995 letter to you. This letter shall serve as a Notice of Viol &ai of the Sanctuary planned Unit Develo ment (PUD). The City feels the stockpii of fill dirt
PUD apprd The reduction of required 25% preserve area and the negative impact to
the trees will not be tolerated by the City.
along a portion of the western P 0' wide preserve areabuffer is in direct conflict with the
The Pulte Home Corporation has thirty (30) days to return the area to the required preservefiuffer, or submit an application to amend the Sanctuary PUD with supporting
documentation. The City's Building Department is still under advisement not to issue a CQ
on existing homes under construction along the western buffer area. As of this letter, the
City is advising Pulte Home Corporation that no building permits €or phase two will be
issued until this matter is resolved.
Failure to comply within the above mentioned time frame may result in a representative of
your corporation being summoned to appear before the Code Enforcement Board. which
has the authority to levy fines of up to 5250.00 per day until compIiance is achieved. By authority of City Code Sections 153.65,153.66.153.67 and Ordinance 22,1993 approving the
Sanctuary PUD, please correct the violation by the number of days specified.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 775-8283.
Sincerely,
CC: Greg Dunham, Assistant Civ Manager Jack Hamon, Building Offiaal Mike Maloney, Code Enforcement Supervisor
.
CIT ‘Y OF PALM BEACH
loso0 n. MIUTARV TRAIL PALM BEACH GARDENS
GARDENS
, -IDA 3341-
November 6, 1995
South Florida Water Hanagement District
3301 Gun Club Road
West Palm Beach, PL 33406
C/O Ur. Robert W. Brown
Supervising Professional
Natural Resourse Xanagement Division
Regulation Department
Application.No: 931001-6
Dear Hr. Brown:
This letter is written to inform you that the city of palm Beach
Gardens has cited Pulte Horns Corporation for violating the
Sanctuary Planned Unit Develomnt. Specifically, the dumping or
the placing of soil or other substances vithin Tracts wU-1, U-2, U-
3” (upland preserve), and ha& nW-ln (wetland Preserve) as platted
(please refer to enclose map). ‘This xrohibited activitv. we feel,
has led to the destruction of trees and native vecretation, and has
been detrimental to other environmental issues.
Pulta Homes has acrreed v- to remove the dumed material, and
-der our City
Palm Beach Gardens d
apprise you of the dumping. If this dumping is within your
jurisdictional boundaries, please undertake the appropriate
enforcement procedures.
If you desire additional information, please feel free to contact
me at (407) 775-8250.
for the destru
Sincerely,
City HaMger
cc: TIB Hernandez, Pulte Hame corp.
.
e
.
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
YO500 N. MILITARY TRAIL * PALM BEACH GARDENS. FLORIDA 334104698
November 7, 1995
Department of the Army
Jacksonville Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 4970
Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019
C/O Mr.John F. Studt
Chief, South Permit Section
Construction-operations Division
Regulatory Branch
South Permits Section
Dear Mr. Studt:
This letter is written to inform you that the City of Palm Beach
Gardens has cited Pulte Homes Corporation for violating the
Sanctuary Planned Unit Development. Specifically, the dumping or
the placing of soil or other substances within hacts "U-1, U-2, U-
3" (upland preserve) t and Tract "W-1" (wetland Preserve) as platted
(please refer to enclose map). bas led to the destruction of trees an d native veuetation, and hk
been detrimental to other environmental issues.
material. and
Dreserve
The City Council of the City of
,mitigate for the dest
Palm Beach Gardens directed staff, by way of this letter, to
apprise you of the dumping. If this dumping is within your
jurisdictional boundaries, please undertake the appropriate
enforcement procedures.
If YOU desire additional information, please feel free to contact me at (407) 775-8250.
Sincerely,
199300688 (IP-CB)
This Drohibited activitv. we fee
Bobbie Herakovich
City Manager
?c: Tim Hernandez, rmlte Homes corp.
m (407) 622654s m (407) 622654s
Mr. Mark Hendrickson - city of Palm Beach Gardens
. . ____
Mr. Mark Hendrickson - city of Palm Beach Gardens
The Sanctuary Preserve
SURECT
mcts
- ---- cc: Kim Glas,Planner
Dear Mark:
We have rwiewed the data provided in your November 9,1995 transmitt .-
and our initial findings are as follows:
1) Preserve Area Tract 0-2 as shown on Sanctuary Plat No. 1 and Pli
. -Scrubby Flatwoods 300 1.f. = 0.34 acres . .Melaleuca 80 = 0.10 .
P Q- .. ..Forestea w etsana(cypress) 3bV .. = u.64---.--
---._ -.-____ Total 1,840 l.ff 2.11 acresf
c
h-mw *-xu _._-
.... . #. _. .. .!' I , ;.,. :~
.i;:; '.3' 9 :.,;.-
I . .,I
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
December 18,1995
Pulte Homes Corporation
33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway
sllite 200
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304
RE: TheSanctmy
Plat 1 d2,Tracts U-1 aad U-2 (IdaUplaadpresuVe Areas) &Tract W-2 (Ida Wetland
Prcsenn Area) & Tract W-2 (bda Wetlandplesave Area); The sanctuary Pld Unit
Devdopmeat-WestanandNorth&nN~Anas
Dear Sirs:
Thislettaisa~~NotiaofViolationofvariollsCityCodes. OnApril7.4~d lO,Jdy11,
GardensQJe€efinmck
ocboba23, october24, dNoMnba29,1995 inspeaions were amdwted
concaning the above referenad prqpaty and tbe fbllowing violations of the cay of Palm Beach
NOTIC& OF VIOLATION
Page 2
The Senctnary - Notice of Violation
NO'CtCE OF VIOLATION
please coofact M at n5-8295, if you heve any questions on this matter.
sincerely.
Tbe ci of Palm&ach Gardens
MadEI.HendriCks0 n
City Forester
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
FACSIMILE
MS.gimGlascastro,pbnner
MLMarkHendrickson, Ci Forestes
CiofPalmBeaChGardens
IosoONorthMilitaqTraiI Palm Beach Gadens. FL 33410-4628
Re: The sanduary
Dear Ms. Glascastro and Mr. Hendrickson:
B. Wethodm -Tract= < 8-5s OQPS *>
On August 11 and 13,1!J9!5,weco&uued a field -on and observed the placementofd, muck, andwooclydebris along the north p-
plaaed as Wet&nd Preserve - TradW2.
linevarging from 440-64iZet in height andsfeet in width. This area was
I.
The land area imDQcted bv the clearing of native trees, uxxiersto~~. and
VaIW
wahm .. the U~land Preserve -Tract U2 and Wedand.
. . .I _-,, - c - .._. 1
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
tOIOON.WMYTWL*PAI.M(IL*PI-ROWDA-
Via Fssimlle
m: Planning and Boning staff
BtEBPIIIQr April 18, 1996
eu&ncTr Potition mc -- 95 a , Robat iL Bents of rand -sign
BOuth, agont tor Pulto Homos corporation, to amond the
8.nattury Planned Unit Dovelopent by adding a utility
usuont urd a landscapo traot to tho northwost eornu of
tho Sanatuary PUD, adding an oasuent to aaaess the northern wetland &rainago structure, and roquesting
approval for a ritig.tion/restoration plan for aroas
within upland and wetland preserves along tho western and northern sections of the project. The site is locatod
north of Flamingo Road, west of Prospuity B~M Road,
ust an& south of ?rr.nahman's Creel, and west of the Palm
Buch County devolopmat of Crystal Point. (29-418-43E)
Historv
In Uay of 1995, the City was contacted by the Frenchman's Creek POA
which was concerned about a berm being constructed within the
Sanctuary's 50' preserve/buffer area . Staff learned
I berm I was the result of Pulte fl
A petition to amend the Sanctuary PUD by Pulte Homes to
include a berm in this area met resistance by the Frenchman*s Creek
POA, City staff, and City Council.
of Ptoied.
On July 6, 1995, the City issued a Hotice of Vi olat ia to Pulte ~omes corporation fp vi- f rom the
a Dennit in an environmental area. On February 6,
1996 the City's Code Enforcement Board heard th e case (#96-8) and
found the Pulte Homes Corporation in violation of various sections
of the Environmental Code. Two fines totaling $10,000.00 were
imposed. The "benu* has been removed. In order to complete
compliance to the Code Broad's ruling, the petitioner amended their
previous application.
Robert Bentz, agent, is requesting to amend the Sanctuary Planned
Unit Development (€'KID), approved on November 4, 1993 by Ordinance
22, 1993. The Sanctuary was approved for 184 single-family
detached and zero lot-line residential homes. The petitioner is
requesting approval to amend the Sanctuary PUD by adding a utility easement and a landscape tract to the northwest corner, adding an easement to access the northern wetland drainage structure, and a
a
mitigationjrestoration plan for sections of the western and
northern upland and wetland preserves. The proposal changes the
project's site data, which is now based on the platted acreage.
The plans submitted for City Council's review indicate that the
Frenchman's Creek 25' wide bemed landscape buffer, including their
fence encroaches into the Sanctuary's 50' wide buffer area at the
encroachment. but they will need to take it out of the uDland.
northwest corner. The vetitioner provoses to all ow thlS ,
preserve status as it is presently p latted. The plans also
indicate a new utility easement for Seacoast Utilities in the
northwest corner. This will need to be taken out of e
Dreserve st- Pursuant to the master drainage plan, the
petitioner was directed by South Florida Water Management District
to construct an access to the project's northern wetland outfall
drainage structure. This access was not addressed during the
City's original review and approval process, and upon
acknowledgement by City staff of its need, an access easement was
required. This easement is vrovosed to be subtracted
wetland preserve as it no longer functions as a wetland as first
antiCiDated. Pulte Homes Corporation's has prepared a replat of
the Sanctuary Plat No. 2 to add the above-mentioned changes to the
approved plat. These changes have all come to light since the
review began of the mitigation for the environmental violations.
The petitioner has submitted native vegetation landscape plans,
contour plans, and drainage plans. These will establish, replace
or mitigate the natural grade and plants once within the 50' wide
preserve/buffer prior to the unapproved dumping, and the site work
that removed the exotic invasive plants. The natural grade of this
area is lower than the adjacent Sanctuary lots and Frenchman's
Creek's buffer. This proposed plan is to look natural, and
function with the Sanctuary's drainage system.
The site data has been revised to correctly reflect the
surveyedjplatted areas. To the benefit of the Sanctuary's homeowners, the platted acreage for preserve status lands is
greater than the original plans figures estimated. Subtracting the
landscaped encroachment, utility easement, and access easement from the current totals does not create fiaures that fall blow the acreage required by the original Pm) appGova1.
is beinq subtracted from areas the City regarded and approved as meserve land.
The petitioner has provided a time schedule for completion of the
restoration once City Council approves the petition. This time
schedule is also incorporated into the city's Code Enforcement
Board's ruling. A $750.00 per day fine will be assessed if the
property has not been brought into compliance within ten (10) weeks after the approval by City Council.
At this time, there are 34 vacant lots, and homes remaining to be built. Pulte Homes has stated they expect to pull their final
building permits by the end of August, 1996. They expect to
request their final Certificate of Occupancy by the end of
November, 1996.
Staff feels there should be compensation for the loss of DreseNe acreaQe i n the proposed landscape tract. utility and acceso
oplldgentg. Staff also feels there should be a safe guard for the Sanctuary POA on the survival of the proposed plantings becZIWe
Pulte Hares logistically could be completed with all house
construction this year. The proposed conditions should adequately
address these concerns.
Staff recommends approval of the PULl amendment only. If the City
Council is ready to approve this petition, staff recommends the
following conditions:
I.
2.
1.
4.
5.
The replat of the Sanctuary Plat No. 2 shall be approved by
City Council within thirty days of approval, or prior to the
issuance of any Building Permit for lot 61 (site plan
number)/152 (plat number), whichever comes first.
Tract 0-6 within the Sanctuarv Plat Wo. 2 8 hall be reDlated to
chanse the tract from ODIZII smce status to Dreserve sta tus,
This replat shall be approved by City Council within thirty
days of approval, or prior to the issuance of any Building
Permit for lot 134/65. whichever come first.
When the mitigation/restoration work is finished, the
petitioners Engineer and Environmental Consultants shall
certify in writing to the City that the site work and
landscaping were installed per the approval. In no event
shall the last Certificate of Occupancy be issued until this
condition is met.
The landscaping shall be warrantedjguaranteed for one year by
the petitioner from the date of certification.
The applicant shall provide a copy of the executed drainage
easements required between lot 163 and 164 and between 159 and
160 prior to the Certificate of Occupancy of the lot/house on
which the easement is within.
April 11. I996
RESOLUTION 66.19%
A RESOUmON OF THE ClTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS. FLDRIDA. AMENDtNG THE
!iQWCIUARY PLANilED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, APPROVED
ON NOVEMBER 4, 1993 BY ORDINANCE 2?!, 1993.
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFEClWE DATE
WHEREAS, the petitioner has quested an amendment to the Sanctuary Planncd Unit
Dcwlopmms by addingautilitywsurmt anda landscape tract to thc nonhmst corner, adding an
casement u) access the wnbun wetlaud drabage and requesting approval for a
mitigatio&cstoration plan for areas within uplard and wetland prcscrva along thc wca~ll and
wlthem dons of thc paojea; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED BY THE ClTY COUNCIL OF THE ClTY OF
PALMBEACHGARDENS..FLORIDk
Sdon 1. ’Ibc City council of tk CFty of Palm &ach Gardarc, Raida,hcreby appnwcs
an amendment to thc Sammy @nncd Unit ~dopmcnt, by adding a utility CBsCwIlt ard
~tractK,thcwRbwestoomer,addingancascmcattoacccsst&northcrnwetlanddrainagc
sauc&rc, ad a mitigationkstoration plan for srcas within upland and wetland prrserves along the
western ad hem sc~%ons of the project.
. ‘.
Section 2. Said amcncbneofo shall be in accordance with the plans on file in the City’s
Plarming and zoning Department as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
April 10.1996, The saactuary Site Plan by Land Design South. 1 Sheet.
Fckuary 5,1996, Tbc %auaty Exisring Conditions by Laud Design South. 1 Sheet.
February 5.1996, Ibc Sanctuary Detail Plan by Land Design South. I SW.
FCaUary5,19961be Sactimy Ovaall Cottmuctim Plan by Land &sign South. 1
Sheet.
Apd 14 19% lk Sanauuy H.bitar Cmss Sections by Laad Dcsigu South. 1 Sheet.
Dcccmbcr 19,1995, Tbe s;mewrY Typical 100 Foot Elevation.
January 23,1996, Survey ofa LaadKlpc Bmn Ewoachment Saoauary Plat 2 by
Bcneh Mask. 1 shca.
January 20.1996, The Sanctuy Pa- and Drahagc Plan by Scbarfer and Fagan.
7 sheers.
I.
9. DcambCr4l995,'Ibc SIllChlary ~Anacontourpkn by Schacfcr aad Fv.
3 sheto.
10. January 22,1996. Thc Sanctuay Buffer Mitigation Comtnrctiaa Time schrdule by
Laad hip Sauth. 1 Sheet.
scction3. -- COd&lW&~Yi
The replat of the sanchlary No. 1. council prior to thc
isuancc of any Building Pcrmit
a 2.
atus. Thip rcpIat shaU k approved by City Coudl prior to the Cati-e of . mcy of platted Lots 64 through 67.
3. When the mitigation/rcstdon work is f~shed. the petitioners Engineer and
Envi
landscapirrg were installed pa the approval. The last Certificate of Occupancy shall
m be issued until this cmditioa has been met.
* I conrulomts &all exti@ in writing to rbe City that the site work and
4. The landscaping shall be warnartd/guarantced for one year by the petitioner &om
thedate the -_ city .- acQepts --- mficatian.
5. The applicant shall provide a copy of tbc exccuted drainage easements required
between Lot 163 and 164 and between 159 and 160 prior to the certificate of
Occupancy of the lothouse on which the casement is within. ..
Scaion 3. This Resolution shall bc effective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED
ATl-ESE
LfM3A V. KOSIER, CMC, CITY CLERK
,&PROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
n I.
VUE:
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR NRTADO
~~CX.LwOMAN MONROE cou" JABJJN
COU"CL4RK
- NAY
n
Sanctuary PBG Homeowners Association
1350 East Newport Center Drive Suite 200
Deerfield Beach. FL 33442
RE: Case No. 96-8
Dear Sanctwry PBG Homeowners Assodation :
This b to sewa as a follow up to the Code Enforcement Board's Find Order. a copy of
which has baen previously provided to you and is hereby attached. Thi licn has been
recorded in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County.
Upon review of your case, the Code Enforcement Officar advised you complied with the
Code Enforcement Board's Finol Order on October 21, 1996 Per the Final Order issued by
the Code Enforcement Board on February 6. 1996. the comply date was June 27, 1996.
Pkase be advised that this lien was accruing at $750.00 per day. The amount of the fine
as of October 21. 1996 is $86,250.00. You may call to make payment arrangements to
settle this lien or pay it in full. Payment is to be made to the Ci of Palm Beach Gardens.
Upon Payment of the lm. a Adease of Licn shall be processed and a copy provided you.
You may submit a letter to appear before the Code Enforcement Board to request a
reduction or waiver of fine. Upon receipt of your letter, you will be notified as to the
scheduled hearing date. It will be your responsibility to present your reasons for the request
to the Code Enforcement llord it the hearing. The Code Enforcement Board will then
determine whether they will or will not reduce or waive the fine.
Your immediate attention to this matter is requested. Please do not hesitate to contact me
if you have any questions.
Sincerely.
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
Greg Dundm
Asaistsnt Cii Manager
Eno: Copy of And Order
I
REASON 2 TO DENY:
IN 1996 THE CITY COUNCIL PLACED A PERMANENT LAND RESTRICTION ON
PRESERVE TRACT U-3.
1. The Dedication for Tract U-3 reads: “THIS CONSERVATION AREA MAY IN NO WAY
BE ALTERED FROM ITS NATURAL STATE. ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED WITHIN THE
CONSERVATION AREA INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, CONSTRUCTION OR
PLACING OF BUILDINGS ON OR ABOVE THE GROUND; DUMPING OR PLACING
SOIL OR OTHER SUBSTANCES SUCH AS TRASH; REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF
EXOTIC/NUISANCE VEGETATION REMOVAL; ANY OTHER ACTIVITIES
DETRIMENTAL TO DRAINAGE, FLOOD CONTROL, WATER CONSERVATION,
EROSION CONTROL, OR FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION OR
PRESERVATION.” (See Document 1 attached)
TREES; SHRUBS OR OTHER VEGETATION- WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
2. The language was mandated by the City Code, the City Staff and the City Council.
3. This language was mandated by City Code and Comp Plan.
4. This language was relied upon by many Sanctuary residents at the time that they
purchased their home.
5. PRESERVE TRACT U-3 IS PROTECTED IN PERPETUITY BY A RECORDED LAND
RESTRICTION WHICH PROHIBITS LAND ALTERATION, AND ACTIVITIES SUCH AS
REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF TREES, SHRUBS OR OTHER VEGETATION.
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004
-9-
Page 9 of 37
July 11,1996
RESOLUTION 106,1996
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE
SANCTUARY REPLAT OF TRACT "0-6".
WHEREAS, the City E@mx has reviewed an application to approve the sanctuary
Replat of Tract "0-6".
WHEREAS,tbCCitypllpirreMhaSdt%emU& that tb& proposed Replat meets au of the technical- of the City's Land Development ReguMons and Cbaptcr 177, F.S. ami - thc approval of the Replat, aod
NOW, THEREFORE, BE Ff RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALMBEACHGARDENS,pLxIRIDA:
&ctiml. The Mayor and City Ckrkarcbcreby directadand authorized toexecutethe
Mylar of the Sanc&y Replat of Tract "Ma, consistiag of two (2) sheets dated June 19%,
prepartd by Bemh Mark Land Surveying and Mappii, Inc. attached hereto as wit "A".
m. This ~Ution shall be ef.rective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS /@DAY
ATEST: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
AND~UFFICIENCY LINDA V. KOSIER, CMC, CITY CLERK .
BY:
VOTE: NAYABSENT
VICE MAYOR FURTADO -7 MAYOR RUSSO
a
e
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT VIOLATES AT LEAST 15 SECTIONS OF THE
CITY CODE.
REASON 3 TO DENY:
CITY CODE MANDATES THAT PRESERVE TRACT U-3 BE PRESERVED AS IT IS AN
OAK FOREST.
Code Sec. 78-246. Designation of environmentally significant lands.
(a) Criteria for designation. Lands shall be designated as environmentally significant if
they contain one or more of the native habitat types listed below, as defined by the Guide
to the Natural Communities of Florida, published by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection:
(I) Coastal scrub;
(2) Xeric hammock or xeric scrub;
(3) Tropical hammock;
(4) Low hammock, temperate hammock or mesic hammock
(5) Mixed hardwood swamp or hydric hammock;
(6) Pond apple slough;
(7) Cypress swamp;
(8) Freshwater marsh;
(9) Mangrove swamp;
(IO) Oak forest;
(I I) Pine flatwoods, mesic and hydric;
(12) Scrubby flatwoods;
(13) Coastal dune and strand; and
(I 4) Wet prairies.
Preserve Tract U-3 was designated a Preserve Area and or Oak Forest Preserve on the
Site Plan, Army Corps of Engineers Permit and SFWMD Permit.
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004
- 10-
Page 10 of 37
REASON 4 TO DENY:
CITY CODE MANDATES THAT PRESERVE TRACT U-3 BE PRESERVED AS IT
SUPPORTS SPECIES LISTED AS ENDANGERED OR THREATENED.
Code Sec. 78-246. Designation of environmentally significant lands.
(b) Additional habitats. Native habitats other than those listed in subsection (a) of
section 78-246 may also be designated as environmentally significant if they are actively
used by or likely to support or contain species listed as endangered, threatened, or of
special concern by applicable laws or regulations adopted by the U.S. or State of Florida.
VIOLATION - The Environmental Assessment states that “Wildlife species anticipated to
occur in the subject property include Florida mouse, gopher frog, and Eastern Indigo
snake”. Since Preserve Tract U-3 supports and is likely to support these species it should
continue to be protected.
There are gopher tortoises in Preserve Tract U-3. Photos of gopher tortoises have been
taken. The GOPHER TORTOISE AND LISTED SPECIES LOCATION MAP on the
following page depicts gopher tortoise nests.
REASON 5 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-250 (a) (1) a.
Code Sec. 78-250. Preserve area requirements.
(a) required preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
Minimum requirements. The minimum requirements listed below shall apply to all
(1) Preserve area designations.
a. A minimum of 25 percent of environmentally significant lands, intact with
canopy, understory and ground cover, such as sand pine scrub, xeric oak
forest, hardwood hammock, and pine flatwoods, shall be set aside as a
preserve.
VIOLATION - The preserve land must remain intact with canopy, understory and ground
cover. Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow destruction of canopy, understory and
ground cover.
- 11 -
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004 Page 11 of 37
REASON 6 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-250 (a) (2) b.
Code Sec. 78-250 (a) (2) 6.
(a)
required preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
Minimum requirements. The minimum requirements listed below shall apply to all
(2) Lands to be set aside in preserve areas. Lands to be set aside in preserve areas
shall be identified and selected based upon the criteria listed below.
b. Preserved in viable condition, with intact canopy, understory, and ground
cover, and maintained without infringement by drainage or utility easements.
VIOLATION - The preserve land must remain intact with canopy, understory and ground
cover. Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow destruction of the canopy, understory
and ground cover.
VIOLATION - The HOA plans to run utility lines through Preserve Tract U-3 which is a
violation of the Code.
REASON 7 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-250 (a) (2) c.
Code Sec. 78-250 (a) (2) c.
(a)
required preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
Minimum requirements. The minimum requirements listed below shall apply to all
(2) Lands to be set aside in preserve areas. Lands to be set aside in preserve areas
shall be identified and selected based upon the criteria listed below.
c. Platted as separate parcels of land, including conservation easements
pursuant to F.S. Section 704.06, or as otherwise approved by the city
council.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow the violation of the underlying
Land Restriction which language was taken from F.S. Section 704.06. The Land
Restriction mandates that there be no alteration to preserve lands and no cutting trees,
shrubs or other vegetation.
-12-
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 12 of 37
REASON 8 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-250 (a) (2) e.
Code Sec. 78-250 (a) (2) e.
(a) required preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
Minimum requirements. The minimum requirements listed below shall apply to all
(2) Lands to be set aside in preserve areas. Lands to be set aside in preserve areas
shall be identified and selected based upon the criteria listed below.
e. Clearly defined, protected, and managed in such a way that it serves a
purpose, such as habitat protection, to the ecological and vegetative
communities adjacent to such area.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will not protect the habitat within Preserve
Tract U-3.
VIOLATION - Management under Sec 78-251 does not allow partition or division of any
part of Preserve Tract U-3.
REASON 9 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-250 (a) (2) g.
Code Sec. 78-250 (a) (2) g.
(a) required preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
Minimum requirements. The minimum requirements listed below shall apply to all
(2) Lands to be set aside in preserve areas. Lands to be set aside in preserve areas
shall be identified and selected based upon the criteria listed below.
g. Maintained as lame open or areen areas with the intent of preserving
such areas to promote self-sustaining, balanced plant growth, biodiversity,
and wildlife enhancement.
VIOLATION - Approval of the Lake Access Tract will not promote wildlife enhancement
and will introduce non-native species.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow the introduction of pets, dogs
and children into the Preserve and that does not promote plant growth, biodiversity and
wildlife enhancement.
- 13-
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 13 of 37
REASON 10 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-250 (a) (2) j.
Code Sec. 78-250 (a) (2) j.
(a)
required preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
Minimum requirements. The minimum requirements listed below shall apply to all
(2) Lands to be set aside in preserve areas. Lands to be set aside in preserve areas
shall be identified and selected based upon the criteria listed below.
j. Compact in nature, avoiding strip or noncontiguous patterns, and arranged
in a continuous fashion where possible. The use of long, narrow preservation
areas is discourased.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow the creation of a strip pattern.
Approval of the Lake Access Tract creates 2 long, narrow preservation areas each less
than 100 feet wide.
REASON 11 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-250 (a) (2) k.
Code Sec. 78-250 (a) (2) k.
(a)
required preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
Minimum requirements. The minimum requirements listed below shall apply to all
(2) Lands to be set aside in preserve areas. Lands to be set aside in preserve areas
shall be identified and selected based upon the criteria listed below.
k. Protecting and preserving of the following: all endangered and threatened
plant, animal, and marine populations, and the habitat of critical value to
regional populations of endangered and threatened species.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will not protect and preserve threatened
plant, animal populations or their habitat.
- 14-
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 14 of 37
REASON 12 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-250 (a) (3) a.
Code Sec. 78-250 (a) (3) a.
(a)
required preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
Minimum requirements. The minimum requirements listed below shall apply to all
(3) Minimum dimension and total area.
a. The minimum lenath or width dimension of all required preserve areas
shall be at least 100 feet, except for preserve areas for historic or specimen
trees when a smaller size may be appropriate.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will create 2 preserve areas each less
than 100 feet.
REASON 13 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-250 (a) (4) e.
Code Sec. 78-250 (a) (4) e.
(a)
required preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
Minimum requirements. The minimum requirements listed below shall apply to all
(4) Minimum dimension and total area.
e. The proposed project shall be managed to ensure the following:
1. The protection of all listed plant and animal species;
2. The highest quality wetlands and uplands are preserved intact.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will not protect plants and animals.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will not keep Preserve Tract U-3 intact.
- 15-
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 15 of 37
REASON 14 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-250 (b) (1) a.
Code Sec. 78-250 (b) (1) a.
(b) Alterations within the preserve.
(1) Permitted alterations. Alteration within the preserve shall require department
approval, and shall be limited to alterations listed below.
a. The construction of boardwalks, pervious walkways, and other passive
recreational or educational facilities.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow the creation of a 15 foot
unpaved road which is not permitted in Preserve Tract U-3.
REASON 15 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-251 (a) (1) (3) and (5).
Code Sec. 78-251. Management plan.
(a) Management plan required. A management plan for the preserve area or any other
conservation areas within the city shall be prepared by the property owner or entity
responsible for management of the area, as determined by the growth management
department. The management plan shall include but not be limited to the following items:
(7) Long term protection of the preserve or conservation area;
(3) Avoidance of activities or land alteration which may disturb the preserve area;
(5) Control of off-road vehicles;
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will not provide long term protection of
Preserve Tract U-3.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow activities which alter and disturb
Preserve Tract U-3.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow off-road vehicles onto Preserve
Tract U-3. The City Engineer states that Bulldozers and other heavy equipment may use
the unpaved road.
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004
- 16-
Page 16 of 37
REASON 16 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-251 (d) (1).
Code Sec. 78-251 (d) (1)
(d) Deed restrictions and similar requirements.
(1) Application. For those lands identified for preserve status, deed restrictions shall
be approved by the city attorney and placed on the lands and recorded in the public
records of the county.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow the violation of the Deed
restrictions placed on Preserve Tract U-3 by the Developer, the HOA and the City.
REASON 17 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES CITY CODE SEC. 78-251 (f) (5) (a).
Code Sec. 78-251 (0 (5) (a).
(0 Perpetual maintenance. The petpetual maintenance and protection of designated
preserve areas shall be established by a legally binding, recorded instrument, which shall
be reviewed and approved by the city attorney. Such instruments shall include the
provisions listed below.
(5) Retention by owners. Retention of the preserve area by a homeowners’ or property
owners’ association subject to the restrictions listed below.
a. Such preserve area shall remain undivided, and a lot unit owner or any other person
shall not be able to brinq any action for partition or division of any part thereof. Each lot
or unit owner‘s undivided interest shall be preserved, protected, and maintained
through recorded covenants running with the land or a developer’s agreement. Title of
such area shall be encumbered for the perpetual benefit of the public generally, and all
future use shall be consistent with the intent and purpose of the preservation of open
space, as provided in the city’s comprehensive plan and herein.
I
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will:
1. The division of Preserve Tract U-3;
2. Partition Preserve Tract U-3;
3. Fail to preserve, protect and maintain Preserve Tract U-3 in accordance with the Land
Restriction.
4. Disturb the title of Preserve Tract U-3; and
5. Violate the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
-17-
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 17 of 37
~~ ~ ~
REASON 18 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
GOAL 6.1.
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
GOAL 6.1.: THE NATURAL RESOURCE OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
SHALL BE PRESERVED OR MANAGED IN A MANNER WHICH MAXIMIZES THEIR
PROTECTION, FUNCTIONS, AND VALUES.
VIOLATION - Approval of the Lake Access Tract will not maximize the protection of
Preserve Tract U-3.
REASON 19 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
POLICY 6.1 54.
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
Policy 6.1.5.4: The City shall maintain land development regulations containing specific
standards and guidelines for the protection of environmentally sensitive lands containing
one or more of the following:
n. OakForest
VIOLATION - Approval of the Lake Access Tract will not protect the oak forest contained
within Preserve Tract U-3.
REASON 20 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
POLICY 6.1.9.5.
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
Policy 6.1.9.5: The City shall maintain the following minimum requirements to all required
preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
(I) Lands to be set aside in preserve areas shall be:
b. Preserved in viable condition, with intact canopy, understory, and ground cover,
and maintained without infringement by drainage or utility easements.
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004
- 18-
Page 18 of 37
i. Compact in nature, avoiding strip or noncontiguous patterns and arranged in a
continuous fashion where possible. The use of preservation areas as long, narrow
buffers is discouraged.
j. Protecting and preserving of all endangered and threatened plant, animal and
marine populations and the habitat of critical value to regional populations of
endangered and threatened species.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment does not keep the preserve intact.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment creates a strip pattern. Approval of the
PUD Amendment creates 2 long, narrow preservation areas each less than 100 feet wide.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment destroys habitat.
REASON 21 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
POLICY 6.1.9.5.
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
(2) Alteration within the preserve shall require City approval, and shall be limited to:
1. the construction of boardwalks, pervious walkways, and other passive
recreational or educational facilities.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will create a 15 foot unpaved road which
is not permitted in Preserve Tract U-3.
REASON 22 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
POLICY 6.1.9.5.
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
(2) Alteration within the preserve shall require City approval, and shall be limited to:
2. The construction of firebreaks, fire lanes, or fence lines and the removal
of invasive nonnative species and their replacement with native species.
use of native plant communities, existing roads and trails, etc., as firebreaks
is preferred to the construction of new access roads or fire lanes, which
would result in the introduction and spread of invasive nonnative plant
species.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will create a 15 foot unpaved road which
is not recommended for fire breaks. Firebreaks introduce invasive nonnative species.
- 19-
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 19 of 37
REASON 23 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
POLICY 6.1.9.6.
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
Policy 6.1.9.6: The City shall maintain the following minimum requirements to require a
management plan for all preservation areas and/or conservation lands.
a) A management plan of the preserve area and/or any other conservation areas within
the city shall include but not be limited to long-term protection of the preserve/conservation
area, continued removal of and protection from litter and debris, avoidance of activities or
land alteration which may disturb the preserve area, eradication and continued monitoring
and removal of invasive nonnative plant species, control of off-road vehicles, and
maintenance of hydrological requirements. Periodic prescribed burning or other
mechanical methods that would simulate the natural processes of the natural historic fire
regime may be required for some areas.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will:
1. NOT Protect the Preserve;
2. NOT Avoid land alteration; and
3. NOT Control off-road vehicles. IT ENCOURAGES ALL THREE.
REASON 24 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
POLICY 6.1.9.6.
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
Policy 6.1.9.6: The City shall maintain the following minimum requirements to require a
management plan for all preservation areas and/or conservation lands.
(c) Deed restrictions.
(7) For those lands identified for preserve status, appropriate deed restrictions shall
be placed on the lands and recorded in the public records of the county, or they
may be dedicated to a public entity or approved private conservation group for the
purposes of preservation, or appropriate restrictive conservation easements granted
in perpetuity may be established, or such other similar protective measures may be
established, as determined by the city council, upon completion of all review
processes.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow the violation of the Land
Restriction placed on Preserve Tract U-3.
- 20 -
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 20 of 37
REASON 25 TO DENY:
THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT REMOVING A PORTION OF PRESERVE TRACT
POLICY 6.1.9.6.
Policy 6.1.9.6: The City shall maintain the following minimum requirements to require a
management plan for all preservation areas and/or conservation lands.
(d) The perpetual maintenance and protection of designated preserve areas shall be
established by a legally binding, recorded instrument.
VIOLATION - Approval of the PUD Amendment will allow the violation of the Land
Restriction which protects Preserve Tract U-3.
U-3 FROM PRESERVE STATUS VIOLATES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
- 21 -
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004 Page 21 of 37
REASON 26 TO DENY:
All OWNERS OF PROPERTY SURROUNDING PRESERVE TRACT U-3 RELIED ON
THE CITY’S ACTIONS AND HAVE OBJECTED TO THE PUD AMENDMENT.
1. The Owners that surround Preserve Tract U-3 are in total agreement that this should
not be done. The Association has no support for the PUD Amendment from neighboring
homeowners. (See Document 1 attached)
1. AT LEAST 21 OTHER OWNERS IN THE SANCTUARY HAVE OBJECTED IN WRITING.
(See Document 2 attached)
- 22 -
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 22 of 37
QD
U
j I
I
I 5 I
I
13,
i
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
ADDRESS:
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
ADDRESS: 37 fd L
Palm Beach Gardens. FL 33410
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
BY:
ADDRESS: 6GI f&&md
Palm Beach Gardens. FL 33410
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
ADDRESS: 42 pr/h&d htL
Palm Beach Gardens. FL 33410
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
BY: // V
ADDRESS:
Palm Beach Gardens. FL 33410
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 30,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
~ Palm Beach Gardens7FL 3341 0
e
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Prese
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
October 2003
TO:
Sanctuary HOA
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Planning and Zoning Commission
City Council, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision. I object to any alteration or any
clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and
desire the Preserve to remain as is.
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: P43G
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS:
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 30,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS:
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 30,2004
August 30,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
BY:
ADDRESS: /y $,zce .mo d.A #e
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 30,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: 23 fiflcCL-03 bx
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31, 2004
\ TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
BY:
ADDRESS: <33 I I? r<e dh
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 30,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: ? d f)c, 0 Le 4t-w cl &.le
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 30,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear'City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
ADDRESS: dz&d&mD .( lpib
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
e
e
0
August 30,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
3 3L// 0 ADDRESS:
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: 110 fnlweUdQ Lnl.
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: A-4 d Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
BY:
ADDRESS: &/eg&&
Palm each Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: laa %-& r\d’md
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
1 ADDRESS: 131 s 1 Y)#co me
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31 , 2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Trac
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
U-3 located on
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: (70 SaAnaOOd c A -
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
BY:
ADDRESS: /yg 6!b?kd&
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdlvision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
ADDRESS: fc3 0- Lk
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
August 31,2004
TO: Palm Beach Gardens City Council
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
RE: PRESERVE AREA TRACT U-3
located on Princewood Lane, Sanctuary Subdivision
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any alteration, cutting or clearing of Preserve Tract U-3 located on
Princewood Lane in the Sanctuary Subdivision.
I object to any removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation and desire
TRACT U-3 to remain as is, in its natural state.
Palm Beach Gardens, F
REASON 27 TO DENY:
APPROVAL OF AN UNPAVED ROAD IN A CONSERVATION AREA VIOLATES THE
RIGHTS OF THE SANCTUARY HOMEOWNERS WHO RELIED ON THE LAND
RESTRICTION WHEN PURCHASING THEIR HOMES.
The Homeowners expected that Preserve Tract U-3 would remain a preserve in its
entirety.
The City should respect the rights of the Homeowners that purchased in reliance on the
City’s actions.
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004
- 23 -
Page 23 of 37
REASON 28 TO DENY:
THE CITY'S ZONING, LAND USE OR REPLATTING ACTIONS WILL NOT AFFECT THE
UNDERLYING LAND RESTRICTION ON PRESERVE TRACT U-3.
THE PUD AMENDMENT ALLOWING THE CREATION OF THE LAKE ACCESS TRACT
WILL NOT REMOVE THE UNDERLYING LAND RESTRICTION WHICH PROHIBITS
TRACT U-3 FROM ALTERATION FROM ITS NATURAL STATE AND THE REMOVAL
OR DESTRUCTION OF TREES; SHRUBS OR OTHER VEGETATION.
Courts in the State of Florida have ruled that the zoning, rezoning or changing the
use of real property cannot in any way abolish, abrogate, or enlarge lawful
contractual covenants and restrictions pertaining to the property. The existing Land
Restriction will remain.
A. FLORIDA CASES
I. The zoning or rezoning of real property cannot in any way abolish, abrogate, or enlarge
lawful contractual covenants and restrictions pertaining to the property. Staninqer v.
Jacksonville Expressway Authoritv, 182 So. 2d 483, 22 A.L.R.3d 950 (Fla. Dist. Ct. ADD.
1st Dist. 1966).
2. The fact that the lot in question has been zoned by the city for purposes intended to be
employed by the defendant does not abrogate the restriction nor impair the lawful contract
rights created by it. Tolar v. Mever. 96 So. 2d 554 (Fla. Dist. Ct. ADP. 3d Dist. 1957).
3. Purchasers of property zoned for commercial use but restricted to residential use by a
covenant running with the land of which they had actual as well as constructive notice are
properly prohibited from operating a day nursery. Matthews v. Olson, 212 So. 2d 357 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. ADP. 2d Dist. 1968). Children's day care use as violation of restrictive covenant,
81 A.L.R. 5th 345.
4. An apartment house zoning law does not have the effect of altering or modifying deed
restrictions as to the sale of lots in a subdivision restricting the use of lots to single-family
residences. Harwick v. Indian Creek Country Club, 142 so. 2d 128 (Fla. Dist. Ct. APP. 3d
Dist. 1962).
B. US CASES (See Attached Memo)
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004
-24-
Page 24 of 37
MEMORANDUM
A. WILL A CITY'S ZONING OR LAND USE ACTIONS AFFECT THE UNDERLYING
COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ON A PLAT?
ANSWER- NO. THE FLORIDA COURTS HAVE RULED THAT THE ZONING,
REZONING OR CHANING THE USE OF REAL PROPERTY CANNOT IN ANY WAY
ABOLISH, ABROGATE, OR ENLARGE LAWFUL CONTRACTUAL COVENANTS AND
RESTRICTIONS PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY.
1. The zoning or rezoning of real property cannot in any way abolish, abrogate, or enlarge
lawful contractual covenants and restrictions pertaining to the property. Staninaer v.
Jacksonville Expressway Authoritv, 182 So. 2d 483. 22 A.L.R.3d 950 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1st Dist. 1966).
2. The fact that the lot in question has been zoned by the city for purposes intended to be
employed by the defendant does not abrogate the restriction nor impair the lawful contract
rights created by it. Tolar v. Mever, 96 So. 2d 554 (Fla. Dist. Ct. ADP. 3d Dist. 1957).
3. Purchasers of property zoned for commercial use but restricted to residential use by a
covenant running with the land of which they had actual as well as constructive notice are
properly prohibited from operating a day nursery. Matthews v. Olson. 212 So. 2d 357 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1968). Children's day care use as violation of restrictive covenant,
81 A.L.R. 5th 345.
4. An apartment house zoning law does not have the effect of altering or modifying deed
restrictions as to the sale of lots in a subdivision restricting the use of lots to single-family
residences. Harwick v. Indian Creek Countrv Club, 142 so. 2d 128 (Fla. Dist. Ct. ADP. 3d
Dist. 1962).
ANSWER- NO. MANY STATE COURTS HAVE RULED THAT THE ZONING,
REZONING OR CHANING THE USE OF REAL PROPERTY CANNOT IN ANY WAY
ABOLISH, ABROGATE, OR ENLARGE LAWFUL CONTRACTUAL COVENANTS AND
RESTRICTIONS PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY.
1. A zoning ordinance cannot destroy, impair, abrogate, or enlarge the force and effect of
an existing restrictive covenant; Whiting v Seavev, 159 Me 61, 188 A2d 276; Martin v
Weinbera, 205 Md 519, 109 A2d 576: Abrams v Shuner. 336 Mich 59, 57 NW2d 445;
Lefferts Manor Asso. v Fass, 28 Misc 2d 1005.21 1 NYS2d 18, app dismd /2d Dept) 13
ADP Div 2d 812, 217 NYS2d 531: Olberdinn v Smith (ADP. Hamilton Co) 34 Ohio L Abs 84,
34 NE2d 296; Hill v Onrodnik. 83 RI 138.113 A2d 734, reh den 83 RI 146, 114 A2d 398;
Farmer v Thompson flex Civ ADP Fort Worth) 289 SW2d 351 , writ ref n r e.
2. County zoning regulations do not abrogate restrictive covenants nor impair the lawful
contract rights created thereby. Tolar v Mever (Fla APP D3) 96 So 2d 554.
3. Permits as to use of property by zoning authorities do not abrogate or destroy the rights
of persons acquired under covenants as to restrictive use of property, where such
restrictions do not violate public law or public policy. Arlington Cemeterv Corp. v Hoffman,
216 Ga 735, 119 SE2d 696.
4. A change in zoning does not override restrictions placed in deeds. Morqan v Matheson,
362 Mich 535, 107 NW2d 825.
5. A valid restriction upon the use of property is not terminated, superseded, or nullified by
the enactment of a zoning ordinance, Hirsch v Hancock (2nd Dist) 173 Cal ADP 2d 745,
343 P2d 959,11 OGR 167; Kosel v Stone, 146 Mont 218,404 P2d 894; Shuford v
Asheville Oil Co., 243 NC 636, 91 SE2d 903; Mills v HTL Enterprises, Inc., 36 NC App
410,244 SE2d 469, cert den 295 NC 551,248 SE2d 727.
6. The zoning or rezoning of real property cannot in any way abolish, abrogate, or enlarge
lawful contractual covenants and restrictions pertaining thereto. Staninner v Jacksonville
Expressway Authoritv (Fla ADP D1) 182 So 2d 483.22 ALR3d 950
7. Nor is the validity of the restriction thereby affected. Hirsch v Hancock (2nd Dist) 173
Cal APP 2d 745,343 P2d 959.11 OGR 167.
8. A change in zoning does not of itself justify invalidation of building restrictions. Cooper v
Kovan, 349 Mich 520.84 NW2d 859.
9. The municipal zoning authority has no power to change or vary covenants running with
the land if such covenants are otherwise valid. Myers v Smith (Summit Co) 112 Ohio App
169, 13 Ohio Ops 2d 464. 171 NE2d 744, motion overr, app dismd for want of debat q 171
Ohio St 292, 13 Ohio Ops 2d 338. 170 NE2d 71 , cert den 365 US 843, 5 L Ed 2d 809,81
S Ct 802.
10. Zoning ordinances if less stringent do not diminish the legal effect of private building
restrictions, Wier v Isenberg (2d Dist) 95 111 APP 3d 839. 51 111 Dec 376, 420 NE2d 790;
Richlawn v McMakin, 313 Kv 265.230 SW2d 902, cert dismd 340 US 945,95 L Ed 682,
71 S Ct 531 ; Strauss v Ginzberg. 21 8 Minn 57. 15 NW2d 130, 155 ALR 1000
11. The rezoning of property for purposes other than residential does not supersede the
original plat restrictions so as to prevent the enforcement of such restrictions. Tower v
Mudd Realtv Co. (Okla) 317 P2d 753; Maqnolia Petroleum Co. v Drauver. 183 Okla 579,
83 P2d 840, 119ALR 1112.
12. A zoning ordinance permitting the use of property in a residential area for churches,
schools, libraries, community buildings, and certain professional offices, did not override a
restriction against using buildings erected on property for other than residential purposes.
Abrams v Shuqer, 336 Mich 59.57 NW2d 445.
13. Litigation in this connection most frequently arises because of an attempt to use
property which is subject to residential restrictions for business or commercial purposes,
where the area in which the property is located has been zoned or rezoned for such
purposes. Generally, a zoning law cannot constitutionally relieve land within the district
covered by it from lawful restrictions affecting its use for business purposes, Murphev v
Grav. 84 Ariz 299,327 P2d 751; Hvsinner v Mullinax, 204 Tenn 181, 319 SW2d 79.
14. A zoning ordinance may not relieve land from lawful restrictive covenants contained in
deeds embracing a given area, for such ordinance cannot affect or impair the contractual
obligation granted by such restrictions. Richlawn v McMakin, 313 Kv 265, 230 SW2d 902,
cert dismd 340 US 945,95 L Ed 682.71 S Ct 531.
15. An ordinance zoning an area for business purposes could not operate to deprive
plaintiff property owners of such rights as they might have against the defendant property
owners by virtue of restrictions prohibiting the erection of ,buildings in which there should
be carried on any business offensive, noxious, or detrimental to the use of land in the
vicinity for private residences. Scillia v Szalai, 142 NJ Eq 92, 59 A2d 435 (enjoining
gasoline station).
16. Such a zoning law will not take precedence over the restrictive covenant under the
police power, unless the public health, comfort, or welfare demands such an enactment.
See Schwartz v State, 95 Misc 2d 525,408 NYS2d 239, affd /3d Dept) 72 ADP Div 2d 490,
426 NYS2d 100 (a restrictive covenant in a conveyance of property zoned for commercial
uses and originally intended for a shopping mall development, which limits the
development of the property largely to residential one-family homes, and which was
inserted in the conveyance because the shopping mall development was instead to be
located across the highway, has not been shown to be in illegal restraint of trade, and is
valid and enforceable).
17. Ault v Shiplev, 189 Va 69, 52 SE2d 56 (holding that public health, comfort, or welfare
did not demand that restriction against erection of more than one dwelling house on lot and
prohibiting any storehouse, garage, or filling station be superseded by zoning ordinance
designating area as neighborhood shopping center).
18. Thus, an ordinance zoning or rezoning property for business purposes or for
commercial uses does not and cannot override, nullify, abrogate, or impair restrictions
limiting the property to residential use, nor can it operate to relieve the land from such
restrictions, and the enactment of an ordinance rezoning lots from "residential" to
"commercial" does not establish that the original plan or scheme restricting the tract on
which such lots are located to dwelling houses was ever abandoned. Mever v Stein, 284
Kv 497, 145 SW2d 105: Chuba v Glasnow. 61 NM 302,299 P2d 774; Willott v
Beachwood. 175 Ohio St 557.26 Ohio ODS 2d 249.197 NE2d 201; Lebo v Johnson flex
Civ APP San Antonio) 349 SW2d 744, writ ref n re (Jan 3, 1962) and rehg of writ of error
overr (Jan 31 , 1962); Hodnkins v Pickett (Tex Civ A~D Fort Worth) 344 SW2d 461.
19. The action of a planning and zoning commission in rezoning lots from "residence" to
"business" to permit the erection of a motel did not relieve the land from a restrictive
covenant. Parrish v Newburv (Kv) 279 SW2d 229.
20. While the action of the zoning commission in putting residentially restricted lots in a
commercial class indicated a substantial change in the district from residential to
commercial purposes, yet it did not have the force of destroying the restrictive covenant.
Franklin v Moats (Kv) 273 SW2d 812.
21. A change in the zoning ordinance to permit off-street parking could not operate to
destroy the obligations involved in restrictions limiting the use of lots to residence
purposes. Brideau v Grissom, 369 Mich 661. 120 NW2d 829.
22. A zoning ordinance under which the city zoning appeal board authorized the
defendants to erect a building for manufacturing purposes did not abrogate or cancel
previously existing restrictions limiting use of the property to residence purposes and
prohibiting erection of any building except a private detached dwelling. Hisle v Sambrook,
346 Mich 680.78 NW2d 649.
23. Similarly, restrictions prohibiting erection of any structure other than one single-family
dwelling and use of any building erected for any other purpose than that of a private
dwelling were not impaired by the city zoning commission's consenting to the use of
certain lots for off-street parking for automobiles of customers and employees of a
commercial area excepted from the restrictions, or by the city engineer's finding that
parking in the area had created a hazard which could be minimized by off-street parking.
Finlev v Batsel, 67 NM 125, 353 P2d 350.
24. The rezoning of a large part of a 62-acre parcel to an industrial use, including the area
upon which it was desired to build a hospital, could not be considered as affecting
restrictive covenants limiting the whole tract to residential use with no more than one
detached single-family dwelling unit on each lot. Rick v West, 34 Misc 2d 1002, 228
NYS2d 195.
25. The fact that in the opinion of a town planning board land is best suited for commercial
development does not nullify or supersede a valid restriction upon the use of real property
which in no way threatens or endangers the safety, health, comfort, or general welfare of
the community. Brown v Williams, 4-Misc 2d 312,148 NYS2d 841 , affd /2d Dept) 3 APP
Div 2d 939,163 NYS2d 712, reh and app den 12d Dept) 4 ADP Div 2d 745,165 NYS2d
- 699 and app den 3 NY2d 707.
26. An ordinance extending an oil and gas drilling zone to include a plat addition did not
supersede restrictions that all lots in the plat shall be restricted to residences only, so as to
prevent enforcement of such restrictions. Southwest Petroleum Co. v Logan, 180 Okla
477.71 P2d 759.
27. A "residential only" use restriction in a deed to property located in a zone from which
residential uses were excluded would not be deemed invalid where the deed restriction
was for a 25 year period and therefore did not amount to a prohibition of the use of the
land and where the plaintiff-grantee was aware of both the deed restriction and the zoning
ordinance when he purchased the property. Pearson v Ft. Worth Nat'l Bank (Tex Civ ADP
Fort Worth) 564 SW2d 175, writ ref n r e (Jul26, 1978) and rehg of writ of error overr (Oct
4, 1978).
Osborne v Hewitt (Kv) 335 SW2d 922; Fox v Miner (Wvo) 467 P2d 595.
Frev v Povnor (Okla) 369 P2d 168.
28. Adoption by a city of an ordinance unzoning a tract to commercial uses would not
have the effect of nullifying a general plan of improvement devised by the original vendor.
Atfortish v Wagner, 200 La 198.7 So 2d 708
29. Other situations have also arisen where unsuccessful attempts have been made to
override restrictions on property because of less stringent zoning laws. For example, the
fact that property is zoned for multiple dwelling residences or for apartment houses does
not have the effect of altering or modifying a restriction limiting use of the property to
single-family residences; Harwick v Indian Creek Country Club (Fla ADP D3) 142 So 2d
- 128
30. The fact that a zoning ordinance permits apartment houses in a residential district
does not have the effect of abrogating a restriction against the erection of apartment
houses; Heitkernper v Schmeer, 146 Or 304.29 P2d 540, reh den 146 Or 338,30 P2d
1119.
31. The fact that city zoning authorities permit a variance from the setback requirements
of the zoning ordinance for the erection of a garage attached to a house is not controlling
in the face of a more stringent restriction; Mvers v Smith (Summit Co) 112 Ohio ADP 169,
13 Ohio OPS 2d 464,171 NE2d 744, motion overr, app dismd for want of debat q 171 Ohio
St 292, 13 Ohio Ops 2d 338. 170 NE2d 71 cert den 365 US 843.5 L Ed 2d 809,81 S Ct
- 802
32. The fact that an ordinance regarding sideyards is not violated does not provide license
to violate a more stringent restriction. Webster v Dane Corn.. 9 Wis 2d 437, 101 NW2d
- 616.
33. While a zoning ordinance is not in itself of controlling force, yet it is a circumstance
tending to show that at least in the judgment of the municipality the character of the
neighborhood within the zoned area was changing or had actually changed from
residential to business uses for purposes of determining whether a restrictive covenant
should no longer be enforced because of changed conditions. Hill v Oarodnik. 83 RI 138,
1 13 A2d 734, reh den 83 RI 146,114 A2d 398.
34. While a change of zoning certainly is not decisive, it is admissible as evidence to
determine whether there has been such a change of use in the neighborhood as to render
single-family dwelling restrictions unenforceable. Bard v Rose (4th Dist) 203 Cal APP 2d
232. 21 Cal Rptr 382.
35. It was proper to take into consideration, in determining whether circumstances had so
changed as to make it impossible to secure in any substantial degree the benefits intended
to be secured by restrictions limiting lots to residence purposes, the fact that the area in
question was zoned for retail stores and that the immediately adjacent area was zoned for
light industrial use, although this is not to say that a zoning ordinance will invalidate an
otherwise enforceable plan of restriction. Wallace v Hoffman, 336 111 ADP 545, 84 NE2d
- 654.
B. DO ZONING ORDINANCES OVERRIDE PRIVATE COVENANTS?
ANSWER- NO. ZONING ORDINANCES AND PRIVATE COVENANTS OPERATE
INDEPENDENTLY.
1. Zoning ordinances regulate the use of land through the exercise of the police power in
accordance with a comprehensive plan for the entire community. As an exercise of the
state police power to promote the general welfare, zoning is entirely divorced in concept,
creation, enforcement, and administration from restrictions arising out of agreements
between private parties who, in the exercise of their constitutional right of freedom of
contract, can impose whatever lawful restrictions upon the use of their lands that they
deem advantageous or desirable. Zoning restrictions and restrictions imposed by private
covenants are independent controls upon the use of land, the one imposed by the
municipality for the public welfare, the other privately imposed for private benefit.
2. Both types of land use restrictions are held by courts to legally operate independently of
one another. Barrett v. Lipscomb, 194 Cal. App. 3d 1524, 240 Cal. Rptr. 336 (3d Dist.
1987); McDonald v. Emporia-Lvon County Joint Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 10 Kan. ADP. 2d
235, 697 P.2d 69 (1985); Annison v. Hoover, 517 So. 2d 420 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 19871,
writ denied, 519 So. 2d 148 (La. 1988); Our Way Enterprises, Inc. v. Town of Wells, 535
A.2d 442 (Me. 1988).
3. Whether either type of restriction is valid and enforceable presents two separate and
distinct legal issues. As a local governmental exercise of the police power, zoning
restrictions are subject to the usual constitutional and statutory limitations imposed on the
exercise of the zoning power. Private covenant restrictions are subject to limitations
imposed by the sometimes technical common law real property rules in each state which
govern the creation, operation, termination, and enforcement of covenant restrictions that
"run with the land." With respect to interpretation of the scope of private covenant
restrictions see the ruling of the Nebraska Supreme Court in Breelina v. Churchill. 228
Neb. 596, 423 N.W.2d 469, 76 A.L.R.4th 493 (1988): A restrictive covenant is to be
construed in connection with the surrounding circumstances, which the parties are
supposed to have had in mind at the time they made it; the location and character of the
entire tract of land; the purpose of the restriction; whether it was for the sole benefit of the
grantor or for the benefit of the grantee and subsequent purchasers; and whether it was in
pursuance of a general building plan for the development of the property.
4. The general rule adopted by state courts that zoning restrictions and private covenants
legally operate independently of one another. An important implication of the "independent
operation rule" is the uniformly held view of state courts that a zoning ordinance does not
terminate, supersede, or in any way affect a valid private restriction on the use of real
property. See the following cases:
Federal. C. F. Lvtle Co. v. Clark, 491 F.2d 834 (10th Cir. 1974).
Alabama, Brown v. Morris, 279 Ala. 241, 184 So. 2d 148 (1966).
Alaska. Kalenka v. Tavlor, 896 P.2d 222 (Alaska 1995) (zoning provision allowing both
duplexes and single family dwellings is irrelevant to determination of whether covenant
restricts use within subdivision to duplexes).
Arizona. Murphev v. Grav, 84 Ariz. 299, 327 P.2d 751 (1958).
Arkansas. Owens v. Camfield, 1 Ark. App. 295, 614 S.W.2d 698 (1981).
California. Barrett v. Lipscomb. 194 Cal. APP. 3d 1524. 240 Cal. Rptr. 336 (3d Dist.
1987); Seaton v. Clifford, 24 Cal. ADP. 3d 46, 100 Cal. Rptr. 779 (2d Dist. 1972).
Connecticut. Johnson v. Guarino, 22 Conn. Supp. 235. 168 A.2d 171 (Super. Ct.
1960).
District of Columbia. Castleman v. Avignone. 12 F.2d 326 (ADP. D.C. 1926).
Florida. Rocek v. Markowitz. 492 So. 2d 460 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App . 5th Dist. 1986);
Illinois. Dolan v. Brown, 338 Ill. 412, 170 N.E. 425 (1930).
Indiana. Metropolitan Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Marion Countv, Ind., Div. One v. Lane,
prior adjoining landowners did not require apartment building developer to obtain the
Harwick v. Indian Creek Country Club, 142 So. 2d 128 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1962).
786 N.E.2d 1162 (Ind. Ct. ADP. 2003) (holding that agreement between
neighbors' approval of a planned apartment project; none of the parties to the agreement
were parties to the dispute between the developer and neighbors over developer's
application for height variance). Bob Lavne Contractor, Inc. v. Buennaqel. 158 Ind. ADP.
43, 301 N.E.2d 671 (2d Dist. 1973).
Iowa. Burqess v. Magarian. 214 Iowa 694, 243 N.W. 356 (1932).
Kansas. McDonald v. Emporia-Lvon Countv Joint Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 10 Kan. ADP.
2d 235. 697 P.2d 69 (1985).
Kentucky. Citv of Richlawn v. McMakin, 313 Kv. 265, 230 S.W.2d 902 (19501, cert.
dismissed, 340 U.S. 945, 71 S. Ct. 531, 95 L. Ed. 682 (1951).
Louisiana. Annison v. Hoover, 517 So. 2d 420 (La. Ct. ADP. 1st Cir. 19871, writ denied,
519 So. 2d 148 (La. 1988); Hammons v. East Baton Rouge Parish, Dept. of Public Works,
Permit Div.. 461 So. 2d 1225 (La. Ct. ADP. 1st Cir. 1984).
Maine. Whiting v. Seavev. 159 Me. 61, 188 A.2d 276 (1 963).
Maryland. Martin v. Weinberg, 205 Md. 519, 109 A.2d 576 (1954).
Massachusetts. Jennev v. Hvnes. 282 Mass. 182,184 N.E. 444 (1933).
Michigan. Rofe v. Robinson, 93 Mich. ADP. 749, 286 N.W.2d 914 (19791, case
remanded, 408 Mich. 899,295 N.W.2d 228 (19801, on remand to, 99 Mich. App. 404,298
N.W.2d 609 (19801, decision rev'd (Supreme Court rev'd the
Court of Appeals which found a change in the character of the subdivision which made
enforcement of the restrictions inequitable), 415 Mich. 345. 329 N.W.2d 704 (19821, on
remand to, 126 Mich. ADP. 151, 336 N.W.2d 778 (1983); Morgan v. Matheson, 362 Mich.
535, 107 N.W.2d 825 (1961).
Minnesota. Strauss v. Ginzberg, 218 Minn. 57, 15 N.W.2d 130, 155 A.L.R. 1000
(1944).
Montana. State ex rel. Region II Child and Familv Services, Inc. v. District Court of
Eighth Judicial Dist., 187 Mont. 126, 609 P.2d 245 (19802.
New Jersey. Scillia v. Szalai, 142 N.J. Ea. 92, 59 A.2d 435 (Ch. 1948).
New Mexico. Sinqleterrv v. Citv of Albuquerque, 96 N.M. 468, 632 P.2d 345 (1 981 );
New York. Renan v. Tobin, 89 A.D.2d 586,452 N.Y.S.2d 249 (2d Dep't 1982); Gordon
Hines Corp. v. Citv of Albuquerque, 95 N.M. 31 1,621 P.2d 11 16 (1980).
v. Incorporated Villaqe of Lawrence, 84 A.D.2d 558.443 N.Y.S.2d 415 (2d Dep't 19811,
order affd, 56 N.Y.2d 1003,453 N.Y.S.2d 683.439 N.E.2d 398 (1982).
Johnston, 53 N.C. ADP. 97, 280 S.E.2d 1 (1981); Mills v. HTL Enterprises. Inc., 36 N.C.
App. 410, 244 S.E.2d 469 (1978).
North Carolina. Crabtree v. Jones, 112 N.C. APR. 530.435 S.E.2d 823 (1993); Buie v.
Oklahoma. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Drauver, 1938 OK 545, 183 Okla. 579, 83 P.2d
840, 119 A.L.R. 11 12 (1938).
Oregon. Heitkemper v. Schmeer, 146 Or. 304, 29 P.2d 540, reh'g denied, 146 Or. 338,
30 P.2d 1 1 19 (1 934).
Pennsylvania. Haskell v. Gunson, 391 Pa. 120. 137 A.2d 223 (1958).
Rhode Island. Farrell v. Meadowbrook Corp., 11 1 R.I. 747, 306 A.2d 806 (1973).
South Carolina. lnabinet v. Booe. 262 S.C. 81, 202 S.E.2d 643 (1974).
Texas. Farmer v. Thompson, 289 S.W.2d 351 (Tex. Civ. ADP. 1956).
Virginia. Auk v. Shiplev. 189 Va. 69. 52 S.E.2d 56 (19491.
Wisconsin. Webster v. Dane Corp., 9 Wis. 2d 437, 101 N.W.2d 616 (1960).
Wyoming. Fox v. Miner, 467 P.2d 595 (Wvo. 1970); Anderson v. Bommer, 926 P.2d
959 (Wvo. 1996) (zoning restrictions cannot override, annul, abrogate, or relieve land from
building restrictions or covenants; thus, lacking any evidence that restrictive covenants are
invalid, illegal, or contrary to public policy, city ordinances cannot relieve homeowner of
obligation to uphold the restrictive covenants).
5. The fact that a use may be permitted by a zoning ordinance does not relieve an owner
of the obligation to comply with a more restrictive private covenant. In some cases, zoning
ordinances expressly provide that the provisions thereof do not abrogate private covenant
restrictions. See, e.g., Kramer v. Nelson, 189 Wis. 560, 208 N.W. 252 (1926); Burgess v.
Maqarian, 214 Iowa 694,243 N.W. 356 (1932).
6. However, such provisions are irrelevant in view of the express holding by courts that
zoning ordinances do not affect private restrictions and that a municipality has no authority
through zoning to terminate private covenants.
7. Consider also the analogous situation involved in cases which hold that a use can be
enjoined as a private nuisance even though it happens to be a permitted use under the
zoning ordinance. See, e.g., Dunham v. Zoning Board of Town of Westerlv, 68 R.I. 88, 97,
26 A.2d 614,618 (1942)
8. When a zoning restriction and a private covenant are in conflict, the more restrictive of
the two prevails. Brown v. Morns, 279 Ala. 241, 184 So. 2d 148 (1966); LaSalle Nat'l Bank
v. Village of Palatine. 92 lll.A~p.2d 327. 236 N.E.2d 1 (1968); Citv of Gatesville v. Powell,
500 S.W.2d 581 flex. Civ. ADP. Wac0 19731, writ refused n.r.e., (Jan. 23, 1974).
And see McDonald v. Emporia-Lyon Countv Joint Bd. of Zonina Appeals, 10 Kan. App .2d
235. 697 P.2d 69 (19852,
10. As stated above, a zoning ordinance which permits less restrictive uses than those to
which property is limited by a private covenant does not impair the efficacy of the private
restriction. The language used in this connection is that the zoning ordinance does not
"override" the restrictive covenant. As was stated by the Court of Appeals of Maryland in
Peny v. County Board of Appeals: Perry v. Countv Bd. of Appeals for Montqomew Countv,
21 1 Md. 294, 127 A.2d 507 (1956).
11. The above discussed "independent operation" principle is applied in a variety of
contexts. For example, it has been held that annexation by a city of an area restricted by
private covenants did not relieve the area of the restrictions. Sorrentino v. Cunninaham,
111 Ind. App. 212. 39 N.E.2d 473 (1942).
12. It has also been held that statutory vacation of a filed subdivision map on which the
developer had imposed restrictive covenants did not affect the covenants. Bob Layne
Contractor, Inc. v. Buennanel, 158 Ind. App. 43, 301 N.E.2d 671 (2d Dist. 1973).
13. In /-/askel/ v. Gunson, (accounting practice constituted nonresidential use of property
and therefore violated restrictive covenant) the court construed a private covenant
prohibiting the use of property "for any purpose other than that of a private dwelling house"
to prohibit use of a portion of a dentist's house for his ofice, even though the zoning
ordinance allowed that use of a private dwelling. The court, after noting the fact that the
zoning ordinance permitted such a home occupation, stated: It is to be observed ... that a
gulf of difference separates a zoning regulation from a covenant restriction. What a
covenantor specifically demands of the person to whom he sells his property has nothing
to do with what the community, through municipal regulation exacts of every property
owner. Haskell v. Gunson, 391 Pa. 120,137 A.2d 223 (1958). See also Grasso v.
Thimons, 384 Pa. Super. 593,559 A.2d 925 (1989)
REASON 29 TO DENY:
A REPLAT OF A PLAT DOES NOT TERMINATE THE PRESERVE TRACT U-3 LAND
RESTRICTION.
THE LEGAL AND EQUITABLE RIGHTS OF ALL SANCTUARY RESIDENTS WHO
PURCHASED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A PLAT ARE NOT ELIMINATED.
1. Replatting does not eliminate restrictions. Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund Title Note
24.03.02. (See Document 1 attached)
2. The rights of persons who may have purchased in accordance with the prior plat would
not be eliminated. Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund Title Note 24.03.02.
3. When property is dedicated as a park on a recorded plat- Releases by all record
owners of property in the platted subdivision or an appropriate class action would be
necessary to eliminate the private rights. Under the so-called broad or unity rule followed in
Florida as to parks, purchasers in the platted subdivision acquire unconditional private
easements in the park shown on the plat. Boothby v. Gulf Properties of Alabama, 40 So.
2d 11 7 (Fla. 1948) Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund Title Note 24.03.02.
4. When a second plat has been recorded after a prior recording of a plat of the same or
parts of the same lands, the first plat may be vacated upon application by either the
developer of the first plat, OR ALL OF THE OWNERS SHOWN ON THE SECOND PLAT
provided certain conditions are met. FL ST 177.101 (I), (2).
THE PUD AMENDMENT AUTHORIZING A REPLAT OF THE EXISTING REPLAT WILL
NOT REMOVE THE UNDERLYING LAND RESTRICTION ON PRESERVE TRACT U-3.
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004
-25-
Page 25 of 37
effective upon conveyance of one or more of the lots according to the plat and by
reference thereto, and (4) are then binding as between the subdivider and his
purchasers and as between the purchasers themselves.
The Fund's opinion is that title to all of the lots in the subdivision would
be subject to the restrictions and reverter and would not be insurable without an
exception for them. See TN 24.01.03.
Replatting May Not Eliminate Restrictions TN 24.03.02
~~aRdresgictionsconlpiRad ..
in a prior plat?
The answer in general is in the negative. The rights of the original
subdivider, unless he is the same as the one filing the new plat, and persons who
may have purchased in accordance with the prior plat would not be eliminated.
Also, the rights of the public in dedicated streets, alleys, parks, etc., would have to
be considered. See TNs 24.01.01 and 24.01.05.
PLATS AND STREETS
REASON 30 TO DENY:
IN ORDER TO RELEASE A LAND RESTRICTION ALL OWNERS WITHIN A
SUBDIVISION MUST EXECUTE A RELEASE OF THE LAND RESTRICTION.
1. The word "Park," written upon a parcel of land designated on a plat in accordance with
which lots are sold, implies that such parcel is dedicated for park purposes; and the sale of
lots with reference to such plat, where the lots are separated from it only by a street,
carries with it the right on the part of the grantees to have the parcel used for public park
purposes only. FLORIDA EAST COAST RY. CO. v. WORLEY 38 So. 618,49 Fla. 297.
2. An agreement to allow apartment units was unenforceable and void where the deed
restriction required single family homes and all of the property owners did not execute
subsequent agreement. Harwick v. Indian Creek Country Club, 142 So 2d 128 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1962.
3. The written acquiescence by owner-subdivider to Dade County Commission could not
bind or waive the rights of other parties to the agreement created by the restrictive
covenants. Tolar v. Meve, 96 So 2d 554 (Fla. 3d 1957)
4. A restriction imposed alike upon all the lots of a block or tract of land cannot be
released to one purchaser or his grantee without the consent of the other purchasers, or
their grantees, for whose benefit it was imposed. Thompson on Real Property Section
31 73 (4'h ed. 1 962)
5. Where residential lot owners were beneficiaries of covenants, which had been recorded
by subdivider, and which prohibited sale of alcoholic beverages, and no release of
restrictions was obtained from subdivider or residential lot owners in subdivision, release
or modification of restrictions by owners of lots used for bar business was a nullity. Gercas
v. Davis, 188 So.2d 9Fla.App. 1966.
A TITLE EXAMINER MUST PRESUME THAT A CONVENTIONAL PRIVATE LAND
RESTRICTION CONTINUES TO ENCUMBER THE LAND UNLESS IT HAS BEEN
RELEASED OF RECORD BY ALL PARTIES HAVING THE RIGHT OF ENFORCEMENT.
(See Document 1 attached)
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004
- 26 -
Page 26 of 37
A title examiner must presume that a conventional private restrictive
covenant continues to encumber the land unless it has been released of
record by all parties having the right of enforcement. a
When restrictions are imposed either by a subdivision plat or by deed as
part of a plan for a restricted subdivision, each grantee of any part of the
land within the plat or plan has a right to enforce them.
3 Patton and Palomar on Land Titles § 609 (3d ed.)
(TREATISE)
Patton and Palomar on Land Titles
Joyce Palomar
Part 3. Encumbrances And Title Defects
Chapter 11. Encumbrances*--From Matters Shown By The County Records
§ 609. Restrictive Covenants, Statutes and Ordinances
1. When a restrictive covenant in the chain of title appears to have been intended
to run with the land, a title examiner must presume it continues to encumber the
land unless it has been released of record or otherwise terminated. The mere
existence of a private restrictive covenant is an encumbrance on the title,
justifying a purchaser in rejecting the title as unmarketable, Nelson v. Anderson,
286 lll.App.3d 706. 676 N.E.2d 735 (1997) (title to residential property was
unmerchantable when found to be burdened by restrictive covenant contained in
recorded subdivision plat).
2. When a recorded subdivision plat map contains restrictions on the property's
use and states that they are to run with the land, those restrictions are
enforceable by and against subsequent purchasers of lots in the subdivision.
Kohl v. Leaoullon. 936 P.2d 514 (Alaska 1997) (Owners of lots in a tract of land
subject to a common plan of development have standing to enforce covenants
against adjoining landowners). Citizens for Covenant Compliance v. Anderson,
12 Cal.4th 345, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 898, 906 P.2d 1314 (19951.
Castonguav v. Plourde, 46 Conn.App. 251, 699 A.2d 226 (1 997) (Provision that
developer has right to review and approve architectural plans so as to protect the
view from other lots confers upon other lot owner an absolute right to protection
of the view, and a court, and not the developer, will determine whether a
proposed project provides reasonable protection for the view).
Nelson v. Anderson, 286 lll.App.3d 706, 676 N.E.2d 735 (19971 ("The subdivision
plat was recorded, and the covenants therein run with the land to bind the deeds
of each lot in the subdivision. The violation of such a covenant gives every lot
owner in the subdivision the right to sue to enforce the covenant.").
a
3. When restrictions are imposed either by a subdivision plat or by deed as part
of a plan for a restricted subdivision, each grantee of any part of the land within
the plat or plan has a right to enforce them. Kohl v. Leaoullon, 936 P.2d 514
{Alaska 1997) (Owners of lots in a tract of land subject to a common plan of
development have standing to enforce covenants against adjoining landowners).
Alderson v. Cutting, 163 Cal. 503, 126 P. 157 (1912).
Armstrong v. Leverone, 105 Conn. 464, 136 A. 71 (1927).
Nelson v. Anderson, 286 lll.App.3d 706, 676 N.E.2d 735 (1 997) ("The subdivision
plat was recorded, and the covenants therein run with the land to bind the deeds
of each lot in the subdivision. The violation of such a covenant
covenant.").
Heqna v. Peters, 199 Iowa 259,201 N.W. 803 (1925).
Godlev v. Weisman. 133 Minn. 1, 157 N.W. 71 1 (1916).
Wright v. Pfrimmer, 99 Neb. 447, 156 N.W. 1060 (1916).
Coates v. Cullinqford. 147 App.Div. 39, 131 N.Y.S. 700 (1911).
Noonan v. Cuddigan, 85 R.I. 328, 131 A.2d 241 (1957).
Minner v. Citv of Lynchburg, 204 Va. 180, 129 S.E.2d 673 (1963).
Jubb v. Letterle, 185 W.Va. 239.406 S.E.2d 465 (1991) (each individual property
owner within subdivision acquired the right to enforce restrictive covenants
applicable to common scheme for subdivision).
gives every lot owner in the subdivision the right to sue to enforce the
4.A title examiner must presume that a conventional private restrictive covenant
continues to encumber the land unless it has been released of record by all
parties having the right of enforcement Werner v. Graham, 181 Cal. 174, 183 P.
945 (1919).
French v. Diamond Hill-Jarvis Civic Leaque, 724 S.W.2d 921 (Tex.App.--Fort
Worth 1987) (release of restrictions by majority of property owners empowered
by deed to vote for such a release).
See e.g., Mannweiler v. LaFlamme. 65 Conn.App. 26, 781 A.2d 497 (2001).
Beetem v. Garrison, 129 Md. 664, 99 A. 897 (1917).
Hopkins v. Smith, 162 Mass. 444.38 N.E. 1122 (1894).
Sanderson v. Hidden Vallev Fishing Club, Inc.. 743 S.W.2d 486 (Mo.App.1987);
Lake Wauwanoka, Inc. v. Spain, 622 S.W.2d 309 (Mo.App. 1981); Noel v. Hill,
158 Mo.App. 426, 138 S.W. 364 (191 1).
Morrow v. Hasselman. 69 N.J.Eq. 612, 61 A. 369 (1905).
Postlev v. Kafka, 213 App.Div. 595, 21 1 N.Y.S. 382 (1925).
Fogal v. Swart, 37 Pa.Super. 217 (1908).
See generally 26A C.J.S., Deeds, Q 169.
REASON 31 TO DENY:
IN 1999 MARK HENDRICKSON ADMITTED IN WRITING THAT THERE IS ACCESS TO 0
THE LAKE AND ALSO DENIED THE SANCTUARY HOA THE RIGHT TO ACCESS THE
LAKE THROUGH PRESERVE TRACT U-3.
1. On July 6, 1999, the City Forester sent a letter to the Sanctuary HOA advising:
“There are five (5) drainage easements around the lake. The easements are 12’ wide so
that heavy equipment and personnel can gain access to all drainage facilities, including the
lake.” The letter continues: “I have enclosed a copy of the Tract “U-3” (Upland Presewe)
(formerly Tract “0-6”) language. The language does not prohibit nature trails, but is
otherwise very restrictive. An access for lake maintenance equipment is out of the
question.” (See Document 1 attached)
- 27 -
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004 Page 27 of 37
July 6, 1999
Ms. Beverley Jamason
The Best in Property Management
P.O. Box 301 54
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420
Re: The Sancm PUD - Access to Lake
Dear Ms. Jamason:
I recently Visited the Sanctuary community to review the proposed trail through the upland
preserve next to the lake that Advanced Aquatics had partially flagged. After reviewing your
January 29,1999 facsimile, field conditions and the approved Sanctuary PUD plans, I can
understand your lake maintenance dilemma.
There are five (5) drainage easements around the lake. The easements are 12' wide so that heavy
equipment and personnel cau gain access to all drainage facilities, including the lake. Normally,
certain landscaping and fencing are allowed in easements because they can be removed and
replaced or opened in emergencies. If obstructions occur in any easement that prevents general
maintenance access, I would suggest working with the all property owners to resolve this issue.
In the field, I also noticed that some property owners are installing landscaping within the 20'
wide lake maintenance easement. The City permitted the developer to install clusters of Cypress
trees around the lake, but access around the lake remained unobstructed. I would caution the
Association about allowing property owners to landscape off their property for the same reasons
as I discussed above.
I have enclosed a copy of the Tract "U-3" upland preserve (formerly Tract "0-6") language. The
language does not prohibit nature trails, but otherwise is very restrictive. An access for lake
metenance equipment is out of the question. The City also has concerns about the potential
long term abuse by children and landscape maintenance crews, unless a raised five-foot wide
boardwalk with rails can be built to direct all pedestrian traffic from the sidewalk to the lake
maintenance easement. The City feels a boardwalk would be user fiiendly for all ages, and would
be the environmentally correct approach to transverse this area. If the Association is interested in
the boardwalk concept, the remaining location of the trail should be flagged, and an application
for administrative approval by the City should be submitted with the boardwalk construction
plans.
If I can be of further assistance, please feel fiee to contact me at 776-1064.
Sincerely,
n
Mark I. Hendrickson
City Forester
cc: Jack Hanson, Building Official
Tammy Jacobs, City Engineer
..
REASON 32 TO DENY:
5 PLATTED DRAINAGE EASEMENTS IN THE SANCTUARY ALREADY EXIST WHICH
PROVIDE LEGAL AND UNDENIABLE ACCESS TO THE LAKE FOR MAINTENANCE
PURPOSES.
THE SANCTUARY DECLARATION OF COVENANTS PROVIDES A MAINTENANCE
EASEMENT OVER THE 5 DRAINAGE EASEMENTS.
1. The Sanctuary Plats contain 5 Drainage Easements that run from the Subdivision
streets to the Lake. (See Document 1 attached)
2. MAINTENANCE ACCESS IS PROVIDED. The Sanctuary Declaration of Covenants
Section 2.10 states: “Furthermore, a non-exclusive easement is hereby created over all
utility easements and drainage easements located on any Lot, whether now existing or
hereafter created, including but not limited to all utility easements and drainage easements
contained on the Plats, which easement is in favor of the Association, including its agents
and designees, in perpetuity, to utilize for all proper purposes of the Association.” (See
Document 2 attached)
3. MAINTENANCE ACCESS IS PROVIDED. The Sanctuary Declaration Section 5.04
states: “The surface water management and drainage system for the property is part of
one integrated system throughout the project. An Easement is hereby created over the
Common Properties and over all Drainage Easements throughout the Property
whether now or hereafter existing, in favor of the Association, including its agents or other
designees, for surface water drainage and for the installation and maintenance of the
surface water management and drainage system for the prope rty...” (See Document 3
attached)
- 28 -
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 28 of 37
EXHIBIT 17: PLAT SHOWING LAKE EASEMENTS
3 1 14 45th St. Suite 3 West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 (56 11 640-71M
2 .OJ
-1-
9 8
10
D. Conducting recreation, sport, craft and cultural programs of interest to Ownerr, including the= frrilieS, teMntS,
guests and invitees;
PrarectAon ant! lacority, includtng, hat not 1lmAted
to, the employment of stationary or pavoLllng soeurlty guards wit9in the Property and operation of a guardhouse;
F. rmaincenance of electranfc and other -surveillance devices, Lncluding security gates;
G. Installation, operation and naintenance of cable television facilities, or other comnlcation systems throughout
the Property;
H. Such other services as aro avehorlzed in the Artfcles or Bylaws;
I. Cleanup, landscaping, maintenance, dredging, water treatment or other care of canals, roadr or other property (public or private) adjacent to the Property to the extent uuch car0 would, fr. the reasonable determination of the Board, be beneficial to the Property and to the extent that the Association has been granted
the right to so care for the affected ptog.rty by the mer thereof or other person autharized TO grant such right, includirq, bur. not
limited to, any appropriate qovrrMzenta1 aurhorlty;
J. Emergency repairs and other work on tots reasonably necessary tor the proper aaintenance and operation of the Project.
5.04 Surface Water Icanasmnt and DraiMae. The surface water aanngonsnr and drainage eystem for the Property Is part of one integrated system througnout the Project. An easemonf 11
hereby created over the ColllllQn Propertin and over all minaga easeaenrs throcmout the Propmrty whether nar or hereafter existing, in favor of the Association, lncludlng its agents or
other designees, for surface water drainage and for the
installation and maintmancm of the surface watmr managmnont end drainage oy0t.r for tho Property: provided, however, that such easement shall be subject to Irnprovementa constructed within the Property as permitted by controlling qovorrrental authority from time to the. The Assacistion shall laintain the entire surface uater management and drainage rysten within the Property lnclading any portion thereof owned but not maintained by the South Plotida Water Mansgement District. notwithstinding tho foregoing, the Asrocletion will have the right but not tha obligetion, to maintain any Property which is owned and/or Wntainod by the South Florida Hater Hanagenbent District or any other controlling govemaontal authority Subject to thc requirements of the South Florida Water Management Dietrkt.
E.
14
REASON 33 TO DENY:
THE SANCTUARY PLAT FORBIDS ANY TREES OR STRUCTURES TO BE PLACE IN
DRAINAGE EASEMENTS
Surveyor’s Note #3 on each Plat states: “NO STRUCTURES OR TREES SHALL BE
PLACED WITHIN DRAINAGE EASEMENTS”. (See Document 1 attached)
Every easement carries with it by implication the right, sometimes called a
secondary easement, of doing what is reasonably necessary for the full enjoyment
of the easement itself.
Where the owners of a 20 foot express easement for ingress and egress were granted the
easement by language of the deed that was not ambiguous and that had made it clear that
the whole strip was set aside for ingress and egress, the servient owner had no right to
place permanent obstructions in the form of mobile homes, concrete pads, and a shed in
the described easement area that would prevent the dominant tenement owner from freely
passing over any part of the easement, and considerations about what might have been
reasonably necessary for the dominant tenement owner’s use or needs were not
appropriate or relevant. Kaqan v. West, 677 So. 2d 905, 21 Fla. L. Weeklv D1557 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. APP. 4th Dist. 19962, reh’g denied,
-29-
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004 Page 29 of 37
w
w
E 0 u
J -J 4 rn Ji cn
I- 3 z
W 0:
I- U S I-
a
_.- --. - ..--. -. . --._
- .- .-
rua IC
cn z
l- 0 u a
'I rt
z 0 0
Y
8
r U a * i
E.
U a ul
REASON 34 TO DENY:
THE SANCTUARY HOA AFFIRMED ITS RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE LAKE.
THE SANCTUARY HOA HAS ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS ATTEMPTED TO
ENFORCE ITS RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE LAKE.
1. On December 9, 1998 the HOA sent a letter to the Lot 135 owners and Lot 89 owners
advising:
“Your Board of Directors has asked me to write concerning the drainage easement which
runs between lot 135 & 89. This landscaping must be removed to allow access for the lake
maintenance company.” On February 23, 2000 and April 28, 2000 the HOA sent letters to
Lot 135 owners advising that the Association has a right of access to the Lake and the
easement must be kept clear. (See Document 1 attached for all HOA Letters)
2. On January 29, 1999 the HOA sent a letter to the City advising:
”Apparently the city gave the owner approval for this five years ago without checking with
the Association or any easement rights. Although the Association does have the authority
it would rather not request the owner to remove the fence (and also the pool as code
requires a fence around a pool) unless all other possibilities have been exhausted.’’
3. On September 8, 2000 HOA sent a letter to Lot 63 owners advising:
“Your Board of Directors has requested that we send you a letter regarding the easement
that runs along the side of your property. You may or not be aware of the fact that the
easement must be kept free and clear for access at all times. This is not a board decision
but is required as per the attached page from the plat map for your association.” Letters
were also sent on March 27,2001 and May 24,2001.
4. On September 8,2000 HOA sent a letter to Lot 59,68, 139 & 140 owners advising:
“Your Board of Directors has requested that we send you a letter regarding the easement
that runs along the side of your property. You may or not be aware of the fact that the
easement must be kept free and clear for access at all times. This is not a board decision
but is required as per the attached page from the plat map for your association.”
-30-
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 30 of 37
I I
Sanctuary Homeowners Associati~n, Inc. P.0. Box 30154
PaIm Beach Gardens, Florida 33420
561/792-2934 fax 792-1932
mcember9.1998
Mr. & Mrs, John & Denise Hein 135 Satinwood Lane Palm 8each Gardens, FL 33410
Ms. Ching Lam 89satinwMKi Lane Palm Beach Gardens. FL 33410
RE: TheSanduaryHOA,lncl Drainage Easemnt
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hein & Ma Lam:
The Sanctuary Homeowners Association, Inc.
P.O. BQX 32932
Palm ]Beach Gardens, Florida 33420
56V626-0917 fax 626-7143
L1-
September 8,2000
Mr- & Mrs. Scott & Nancy Propper
63 Prin- Lane Palm Beach Gsrzjens, FL 33410
Dear Mr. 4% Mrs. Pmpper -
Your Board af Direstam has requested that we send you a MIEN regarding the easement that runs abng the side ofyowpmpedy. You may or may not be aware ofthe
kt that the c6asement must be kept- and dear br sums at all times- This isnot a
board decision but is required as perthe atcacfred page fromthe plat map fwyout asrcociation.
t
Sanctuary PBG Homeowners Association, Inc. P.O. Bax 32932
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33420
561/626-0917 fax 626-7143
March 27.2001
Re: Easements
063
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Roppcr: -
Your Board af Directors has requested that 1 write to you and state that the pool heater
that you have installed appoors to be placed on the associati's -. Pkuse revjByI your
homeownersarrvgr and if the unit is on tfteeamnent it must be rwmoud
Shouki you have any questions or require furthcr assistance plcase feel free to cantact our
office & the above number.
Sincerely,
on behaif of !hctmy PB6, HOA, Inc
6
Sanctum PBG Homeownem Association, Inc. ”. .
~ J P.O. Box 32932
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33420
561/626-0917 fa 626-7143
May 24.2001
Mr. Ut Mrr. Scott & Nprncy Propper
63 Princewood Lnnc
Polm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Easements
063
Dear Allr. & Mrs. Propper:
Despite a prior request, as of this date the pool heat- has not been moved and remains over
an easement- Please see enclosed yw approved ARB request that states the requirements
that the approval WlQS based upon. YOUF approved pequest ab showed the heater in a
different iocatian
out Association is pumitt- you 20 days to move the heater. Foih on you. part to have
this work performed by June 14,2001 mil result in your Assocktion havingihewwk
perfd and billing ywr for SUWL
1 suggest that you contact the cosn~any that instolled the pool to find out why the rncjd
the heater without notm the Assuciatkm to obTain upproud for the charrge.
Shwld you have uny questiotts or require further assisttmce please feel free to contact our
offiottkcktxnfenumkr.
L
I I-
The Sanctuary Homeowners Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 30154
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33420
561/792-2934 fa 792-1932
Febnary 23,2000
Re: LakeAccess
As per OUT meeting, 1 have feviewed your assoCiation documents and have endosed a couple of sections of the CWAaraPcm, pages 9,10 & 14 which pertain to the association
having the right to the easements for pwposes of maintaining the lake,
Should you -with this please make amngmem to clear an access route for ttre Jake maintemnoe company. shwid yau not agree with this, piease respond, in Hlriting,
within fourteen (14) davs afthe date ofthii letterwith your reasons why the association may
not u~8 the easement for lake B-.
Please feel free to confact my office at the above number should you hpm any questions wreguire additional infomratiion. -.
Sirrcerely,
The Sanctuary Homemmers Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 32932
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33420
*ne 561/626-0917 fax 626-7143
Sent via facsimile
Mr. Robert Oglesby, PA one cleamke canter, su’i 1400
25OAusEralian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Fkxida
Re: AssociationEasements
135 Satinwood taneKampine
Oear Mr. Oglesby:
As per ourtelephone comersation mgardirrg the above- The board discussed thii matter and at this time has made the reo#rmerrd- that all the - be kept free and dear of any obstndons so a8 to allawprpmptaccclas fbr any future needs.
questions or require additional infwmatson.
sincerelpr,
Beverley Jarrrason 8 Karen ank, Pmperty MmaQers
Please fd free to contad my oflice at the above number should you have any
-.
RL$LL
on behalfofThe Sanctuary HOA, Inc.
a
a
0
,
The Sanctuary Homeowners Association, Inc.
P.0. Box 32932
Palm Beach Gardens, F101id.a 33420
561/626-0917 fax 626-7143
September 8,2000
Ms. Barbara Bentron
68princewoodLane Palm Beach Gardens. FL 33410
- Dear Ms. Benton:
Your Board of Diredors has requested that- send you a tetbrregardirtg the easement that NIW along the sids of your p-. You may or may not be awam ofthe
fact that the emement rrmsf bekept free and clear for access at ali times. Thii is nota board decision but is required asper the atEached page from the plat map for your
association.
Please feel freo tu -42 OUT affioe at the above number should you haw any questions or require further assistance.
Sincerely,
-E?--
Beverley Jamason & Kanen Zink, fbperty Ma- on behalf of The Sanctuary HOA, Inc
EndOSUre
The Sanctuazy Homeowners Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 32932
Palm. Beach Gardens, Hdda 33420
561/626-0917 fax 626-7143
SepWnber 8,2000
Mr. & Mrs, Scott 8 Michelle suskauer
139 Oakwuod Lane Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Easementlnformation
139
Dear Mr- & Mrs. Suskauer.
Your Board &Directors has mquested that we send yau a letter regardii the
-that rum ahg the side of your property. Yw may ff may not be aware ofthe
fad that the emsemnt muat be kept- and cleartbrnorwrrc at all times; This is not a bard decision but is fequ'hed as perthe atEached pagefrosnthe plat map fixyour
association.
The Sanctuary Homeowners Association, Xnc
P-0- Box 32932
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33420
561/626-0917 fax 626-7143
September 8,2000
Mr, 4% Mrs- Steven 8, Carol Moms & Purcell
59 Princewood Lane
Palm Beach Gardens. FL. 33410
Re: Easement Information
059
Dear Mr- 8, Mrs. Morris 2% Purcefl:
Your Board of Directors has requested that we send you 8 letter regarding the
easement that runs along the side of ymr propem- You may or may not be aware of the
fad that the easement must he kept free and clear for acceSS at all times- This is not a
board decision but is required as per the attached page from the plat map for your
association-
If I have sent this Ietter to you in emr ptease note same on this letter and mail or fax
back to my ofice-'l am using the plat map for your community and it may be that the easement is your nexkdoor-neighbors and not yours. Or, if you are not sure if you have an
easement please call my office to set up a time to stop by and review the plats and maps
that we have here-
Please feel free to contad our office at the above number should you have any questions or require further assistance.
Sincereiy ,
WET-
Severley Jamason & Karen Zink, Property Managers
on behalf of The Sancbary HOA, Inc.
Enclosure
LL nu, WD:
U* Eo
The Sanctuary Homeowners Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 32932
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33420
561/626-0917 fax 626-7143
September 8,2000
Mr. 8 Mrs. Frank & Marguerite Compiani
140 OaM Lane
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Easement Information
140
Dear Mr- & Mrs- Compiani: .
Your Board of Directors has requested that w send you a letter regarding the
easement that runs along the side of your property. You may or may not be aware of the
fact that the easement must be kept free and clear for access at all times. This is not a board decision but is required as per the attached page from the plat map for your
association.
If I have sent this letter to you in error please note same on this letter and mail or fax
back to my office. I am using the plat map for your community and it may be that the
easement is your nextdoor-neighbors and not yours. Or, if you are not sure if you have an
easement please call my office to set up a time to stop by and review the plats and wps that we have here.
Please feel free to contact our flee at the above number should you have any questions or requim further assistance.
Sincerely,
Beverley Jamason & Karen Zink, Property Managers on behalf of The Sanctuary HOA, Inc.
Enclosure
REGARDING THE DRAINAGE AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS TO THE LAKE
THE ENGINEER AFFIRMED THE EXISTENCE OF THE EASEMENTS AND
MAINTENANCE ACCESS.
1. On June 6, 2000 the HOA hired Sinclair Engineering Company to inspect the
Subdivision lake access easements and to determine which of the five lake access
easements were suitable to sustain vehicle access to the Lake. (See Document 1
attached)
2. On July 14, 2000 the Engineer advised the HOA:
a. “There are five lake access easements platted between the units indicated on the
adjoining sketch.”
b. “The lake bank at all five locations would require regrading to provide proper vehicle
access to the lake.”
c. “There is considerable development within four of the five easements. Specifically
trees and or fences have been installed in the easements with the exception of the
easement between Units 135 and 89.”
d. “The lake access easement between Units 135 and 89 is the most suitable for
access to the lake”. a
I City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004
- 31 -
Page 31 of 37
To: The Board of Directon
From:
Subject: Lake Access Easements
Date: August4.2OoO
Bevetley Jamason & Karen ZnkK
MEMORANDUM
Dear Board Members:
Please find attached the engineers report for the lake access easements.
-. Sinclair
Engineering Company 0
July 14,2000
Ms. Karen Zink
The Best in Property Management
P.O. Box 30 154
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420
RE: Lake Access Easements - Sanctuary Home Owners Association, 2505
Flamingo Road, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
Dear Ms. Zink:
Sinclak Engineering Company completed its inspection of the above referenced lake access
easements on June 20,2000.
INTRODUCTION:
Sinclair Engineering Company re eived row request on June 6, 2000 to inspect lake access
easements and related items at the above referenced property.
Specifically, you requested that we determine which of the five lake access easements were suitable
to sustain vehicle We.
PROCEDURES:
1) Individual easements between homes as indicated on the attached site sketch were
examined for evidence of capability to sustain traffic.
2) A report detailing our findings was prepared.
OBSERVATIONS:
1) The community can generally be described as a being comprised of single family homes
which were constructed around a lake.
2) There were five lake access easements platted between the units indicated on the adjoining
sketch.
Sanctuary HOA, Page 2
July 14,2000
OBSERVATIONS (Continued):
3) The access easement between Units 135 and 89 appeared to be relatively unobstructed with
the exception of the presence of the water meter for Unit 89 being approximately 2’ to 3’
within the easement and plants on Residence 135 partly obstructed the easement. The lake
bank in this area would require regrading to provide proper vehicular access. However, the
soils in the vicinity of the access appeared to be stable.
4) The access easement between Units 139 and 140 was partially obstructed by the presence of
the water meters for both units, as well as a telephone cable box located at the fiont of the
residences. Further, there was a fence in the rear yard of Unit 139, which obstructed the
easement, as well as a tree in the rear yard of Unit 140, which further obstructed the
easement. Examination of the lake bank revealed that it was washed out in the area of this
easement. Specifically, the lake bank was steeply pitched at the edge of the sod and would
need to be regraded for vehicular access to the lake.
5) The access between Units 58 and 59 was completely obstructed with fences on both
properties. Further, there was a fence near the front of each residence as well as near the
rear of each residence, which had been constructed in the easement area. Examination of
the lake bank area adjacent to this easement indicated that sandbags had been installed in an
effort to stabiIize it. Therefore regrading in this area would be required to provide proper
vehicle access to the lake.
6) Examination of the access easement between Unit 62 and 63 revealed the presence of
landscaping between the two buildings as well as fences which had been installed near the
rear of the buildings and at the rear property line of Building 63. The ground adjacent to the
lake was fairly steep and would require regrading of the lake bank and the yard areas to
provide access to the lake.
7) Examination of the access easement between Units 68 and 69 revealed that heavy
landscaping had been placed between the two buildings in the easement area Shrubs had
grown in the easement blocking access to the lake.
CONCLUSIONS:
Based on field observed conditions and related experience, the conclusions of this investigation are
as follows:
1) The lake bank at all five access locations would require regrading to provide proper vehicle
access to the lake.
2) There is considerable development within four of the five easements. Specifically trees and
or fences have been installed in the easements with the exception of the easement between
Units 135 and 89.
Sanctuary HOA, Page 3
July 14,2000
CONCLUSIONS (continued):
3) The lake access easement between Units 135 and 89 is the most suitable easement for
accesstothelake.
CLOSURE:
Please accept my gratitude for selecting us for your engineering needs and feel fiee to contact this
office for fiuther information as the need arises.
Job: 00-06004
EXHIBIT 1: VIEW OF STREET ACCESS TO EASEMENT BETWEEN UNIT 135 AND
UNIT 89
E- B, 20- 2000..
EXHIBIT 2: VIEW OF LANDSCAPING BETWEEN UNIT 135 AND UNIT 89
EXHIBIT 3: VIEW OF LAKE BANK BETWEEN UNIT 135 AND UNIT 89
EXHIBIT 4: PROFILE VIEW OF LAKE BANK AT UNIT 135 AND UNIT 89 !.
3 I 14 45th St. Suite 3 West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 (561) 640-7144
EXHIBIT 5: VIEW OF STREET ENTRANCE TO EASEMENT BETWEEN UNIT 140
AND UNIT 139
EXHIBIT 6: ALTERNATE VIEW OF FENCE AND LANDSCAPE IN EASEMENT
BETWEEN UNIT 140 AND UNIT 139
EXHIBIT 7: VIEW OF LAKE BANK AT EASEMENT BETWEEN UNIT 140 AND
UNIT 139
EXHIBIT 8: STREET VIEW OF ACCESS TO EASEMENT BETWEEN UNIT 59 AND,
UNIT 58
a
EXHIBIT 9: VIEW OF LAKE BANK ADJACENT TO EASEMENT BETWEEN UNIT
59 AND UNIT 58
EXHIBIT 10: STREET VIEW OF EASEMENT BETWEEN UNIT 63 AND UNIT 62
a
EXHIBIT 11: VIEW OF FENCING BETWEEN UNIT 63 AND UNIT 62
EXHIBIT 12: VIEW OF FENCE AT REAR OF UNIT 63
31 14 45th St. Suite 3 West Palm Beach. Florida 33407 (561) 640-7144
EXHIBIT 13: STREET VIEW OF EASEMENT BETWEEN UNIT 69 AND UNIT 68
EXHIBIT 14: VIEW OF LANDSCAPING BETWEEN UNIT 69 AND UNIT 68
EXHIBIT 15: ALTERNATE VIEW OF LANDSCAPING AT REAR OF 68
EXHIBIT 16: VIEW OF LAKE BANK ADJACENT TO THE EASEMENT BETWEEN
UNIT 69 AND UNIT 68
31 14 45th St. Suite 3 West Palm Beach. Florida 33407 (561) 640-7144
EXHIBIT 17: PLAT SHOWING LAKE EASEMENTS
L
REASON 36 TO DENY:
THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT STATES THAT PRESERVE TRACT U-3 IS A VIABLE
C OM M U N ITY.
1. On February 9, 2004 C&N Environmental Consultants, Inc. prepared an Environmental
Assessment of Preserve Tract U-3. (See Document 1 attached)
a. “Wildlife species anticipated to occur in the subject property include Florida mouse,
gopher frog, and Eastern Indigo snake”.
b. “Floral species anticipated to occur include large-flowered rosemary, Florida blazing
star, pineland lily and tiny polygala”.
c. “Pileated woodpecker, downy woodpecker, and red-bellied woodpecker are known
to utilize the habitat with in the subject property”.
d. “A red-bellied woodpecker and barred owl were observed in the oak hammock”.
e. Passerine species including morning dove, mockingbird and blue jay were also
observed”.
f. “Gray squirrel was also observed in the preserve”.
g. “The .90 acre oak hammock preserve is a viable community, which provides habitat
for numerous avian species including pileated woodpecker, downy woodpecker,
red-bellied woodpecker, barred owl, and other wildlife species”.
h. “Native Plants observed in the Upland Preserve as listed by the Environmental
Assessment include: South Florida Slash Pine, Live Oak, Sabal Palm, Saltbush,
Beauty Berry, Sawgrass, Gallberry, Rusty Lyonia, Wax Myrtle, Wild Coffee,
Myrsine, Saw Palmetto, Virginia Creeper, Greenbriar and Grape Vine”. 0
THERE ARE GOPHER TORTOISES IN THE PRESERVE.
(See Document 2 attached)
(See Photographs)
- 32 -
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 32 of 37
The Sanctuary
0.90-Acre Oak Hammock Preserve
Environmental Assessment
February 9,2004
Sea Breeze Community Management Services, Inc
8259 N. Military Trail Ste 11
Palm Bch Cbmkns, FL 33410
prepared by:
CBtNEmrinmmd~IaC.
612 N. Omge Ave., Ste. A-10
Jupiter, FL 33458
.l.O INTRODUCIXON
The saamafy- Association, Inc. has requested an environmental a!sessment.be
conducted on a 0.909Cae oak)urmmoclrpreserve located within The sanctuary P.U.D. ddential
development. TheI#rrcelislocatedaplnarcrmate ly 2 miles north of PGA Boulevard and 0.5 mile
west ofProspePity Farms Road onH- Lane, sectiorr29, Township 41 !hut& Range 43 East,
Palm Beach Gardens Florida (Figure 1, Site Location hp), (Figure 2, Site Map).
2.0 VEGETATION
Vegetation on the 0.- pmel was khtdied -d- 'ed in the field to provide a tow
mmexation of canopy species located widh the field d to ident@ and chactmm the
characterized for tbe purpose of mapping 8ccofifing to habitat and cover types using F;lorida
Land Use Cover and Fontts Gk@ixz&n svstem, (FLUCCS), Florida hptment of
TranSp0rtat;l 'on, Januray 1999, Level III (Figure 3). "7.w fillowing is a Ctesctipton detach
veg~ecommunityincludingacrenge~chco~to~map.
~canopyspecieson~prncet u~andgnwndcoversbrala~also
F'LUCCS 421
-. - +os81 acres
FLUCCS 434 PineHardwoodFlanrmock - 4-0.09 acres
3.0 Soils
3
4.0 ENDANGEREDIIT€REAW SPECIES
The Florida Fish arad Wddlifk hue mat^ 'on comrmssl ' 'on (ppwcc), Florida of
j4grhhm aed Consumar Services (FDA), and the United stabes Fish aad Wm Senice o mainbin lists of species slated for protectian under Chapter 39, F.A.C. and United
States hdmgemd species Act of 1973. Prior to site survey, a &exatme search was conctucfedto
'anof
the pbabk geographic distribution of listed wils speoies and the probabi(ity of their
ocammceis usedtoidenti@the species. Wil- species anticipatedto o~cutinthe subject
parcel include Florida mouse (P~m~~floridanus), gapha hg (ROM areoZata)y and Eastern
flowered rosemary (Comadltna gmnd@ora), Florida blazing star (I;- oMinpue), pineland
'lily (LiZiwn catesbai), arsd tiny polygala (Po&gda dh).
determinelistwi species with apotential for occmmce on the subjedparceL Deteanmstl
indigo - (Dgmurcbn ma& t?o#pmi). Fld species anti- to occut include lftrge-
5.0 CONCLUSION
T
TABLE 1
An Incornpiebe Inventory of Native Plants olwenred within The Oak Hammock
Shrubs
TABLE 2
Invasive Exotics Obscured -in the Oak Hammock
Florida Exotic Pest Plant Councils' 2003 List of Invasive Species
stenotaphrum secundatum St Augustine grass
T-ntia zebnna wandering-jew
REASON 37 TO DENY:
THE SANCTUARY HOA’s JUSTIFICATION FOR ACCESS TO THE LAKE IS NOT
FACTUAL.
PETITIONER STATES THAT THERE IS NO ACCESS ALTHOUGH PETITIONER
AFFIRMED ITS ACCESS IN WRITING ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.
1. The HOA applied to the City to create a Lake Access Tract. HOA’s justification to the
City for the Lake Access Tract is set forth in Section 1 of the Application. It states:
“JUSTIFICATION- HOA has responsibility to maintain the Lake, however no provisions in
the documents to get to the lake to maintain it”. This statement directly conflicts with:
a. The 5 Drainage Easements shown on Plat 1 and Plat 2;
b. Declaration Section 2.10 and 5.04;
c. Mark Hendrickson’s 1999 opinion;
d. HOA’s letters to Lot Owners advising of it’s right of lake access; and
e. The report from the HOA Engineer.
City Council Presentation
September 28, 2004
- 33 -
Page 33 of 37
REASON 38 TO DENY:
THE FACT THAT THE SANCTUARY HAS EXCESS PRESERVE LANDS DOES NOT
JUSTIFY THE DESTRUCTION OF ANY PRESERVE LANDS.
1. Staff asserts that the Sanctuary has excess Preserve Lands so it is OK to destroy
some.
2. Staff asserts that the removal of Preserve Tract U-3 lands from preservation status has
no effect on the overall preserved land calculations of the Sanctuary.
3. City Code requires a minimum of preserve lands. If a community has more than the
minimum that does not enable the community to petition to destroy preserve lands.
Whether there are 50 or 100 acres of preserve lands is irrelevant. Once they are preserved
they are preserved.
4. Staffs opinion would justify other communities to remove preserve lands over the 25%
minimum.
5. Sec. 78-250. Preserve area requirements.
(a) required preserve areas for environmentally significant lands.
Minimum requirements. The minimum requirements listed below shall apply to all
(1) Preserve area designations.
a. A minimum of 25 percent of environmentally significant lands, intact with
canopy, understory and ground cover, such as sand pine scrub, xeric oak
forest, hardwood hammock, and pine flatwoods, shall be set aside as a
presetve.
b.
shall be preserved.
The city council shall designate the portion of significant lands which
HAVING EXCESS PRESERVE LANDS IN A SUBDIVISION DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE
DESTRUCTION OF ANY REMAINING PRESERVE LANDS IN THE SUBDIVISION.
- 34 -
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 34 of 37
REASON 39 TO DENY:
CITY STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PUD AMENDMENT IS
FLAWED AND INACCURATE
(See Document 1 attached)
- 35 -
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004 Page 35 of 37
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
-Agenda Cover Memorandum ___
Date Prepared: August 10,2004
Meeting Date: September 7,2004
Ordinance 35,2004
Resolution 176,2004
SnbiectYApenda Item
Ordinance 35,2004 and Resolution 176,2004: The Sanctuary PBG HOA, Inc. Lake Access
Tract
First Reading: A request by Sherry Hyman, Agent, on behalf of The Sanctuary PBG
Homeowners Association (HOA), to allow for an amendment to the Sanctuary Planned Unit
Development (PUD). The proposed plan would allow for lake access though an upland preserve
by creating an open space tract. The PUD is 81.9 acres in size and located on the north side of
Hood Road approximately 1,500 feet west of Prosperity
[XI Recommendation to APPROVE
[ ] Recommendation to DENY
Reviewed by:
Planning a zoning Director
City Attorney
Christine Tatum, Esq.
Development Compliance:
BaharebKeshavarz, AICP
Growth Management
Administrator
*
Charles K. wy AICP
Approved By:
City Manager:
Ronald M. Ferris
Advertised:
Date: Aug. 23,2004 I P-. PB Post
Budget Acctk I NA [ ] Not Required
Affected parti-:
[ ]Notified
[ Not Required
City Council Action:
: IApProVed
] App. w/ conditions
[ ]Denied
[ 1Continuedto:
Attachments:
8 Table1
8 ApprovedSitePlan
ProposedSitePlan
8 Proposed Replat of
8 LBF&HMemo
8 Complaint letters (1 1)
0 Ordinaace35,2004
8 Resolution 176,2004
(entatged)
Tract U-3
I
h -- .- I
Date Prepared: Angad 10,2004
Meeting Date: September 7,2004
Ordinance 35,2004
Resolution 176,2004
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Gardens through Ordinance 22,
‘ts on 82 acres. City Council
modification to the model home
ugh Resolution 66,1996, which
ed a utility easement to the northwest
approved the mitigationhestoration
sections of the project that was subj
*. nfnreserve acreaq.
Q PUD Plat NO. 2 W~S % Tract ‘V-3” that exis
Resolution 66,1996, the replat of “The Sanctuary”
diveloper during the construction of the
The approved Sanctuary Site Plan
Tracts.” Two “drainage tracts are for wetland preserve
When the City required the replat of “0-6”, the
owned by the Sanctuary
residential lots and the HOA owned 0.81
known as Heatherwood Lane), and lies between lots #65 and M6. The proposed lake access
tract through Tract “U-3” would allow the HOA to construct aough the native
two “drainage tracts’ are for lake access. None of the four cc -trads * 93 ever
ed on the mroved dats for
.~bred o/\ Tfd U-3
as r~i+rtjdlofi=
Tract “U-3” is accessed off of Princewood Lane (previously
1 Date Prepared: August 10,2004
Meeting Date: September 7,2004 -
vegetation fifteen (15) feet wide and two hundred (200) feet long in ord2wde v&&
-0 the five-acre lake. The proposed path will connect to the existing twenty (20) foot wide
lake maintenance easement, which encompasses the lake, for weekly maintenance of the lake
tract and potentially any larger lake maintenance needs. &odd revs
vegetation to be removed for lake access.
_Dartcted u-e to itc( to allow
The proposed path has been field adjusted and surveyed
removed with this alignment. No listed endangerdthreatened speciessere obsdbased on
to minimize impacts to adjacent home owners and trees. No Oak trees are proposed to be
the HOA’s environmental assessment dated February 9, 2004. The City’s Environmentar
Consultant, Jim Schnelle, has reviewed the environm@al assessment and has agreed with
5-
Due to the insignificant
t reduce the upland preserve acreage below
The City and the San tten objections to any alteration *
ents including-
that one of those
the issue muding the proposed lake access tract.
OA is not planning to utilize the entire 15 feet
or any clearing of the pres
owners to either side of the
has filed a law suit against
To address some of the resi
of the lake access tract has been selected to
Occasionally, the lake maintenance contractor n
for a pathway at this time, and it will be constructed of mulch. The proposed location and width
HOA has stated that it intends to install a ss the fiont of the path
traffic, and place a sign within the path the path is “For lake
only. No dogs or pets allowed.”
LANDUSE ANDZONING bnacr c ;+, 64% 3 ~omp Pien -
The subject site has a zoning designation of Planned Unit Development Overlay with
)30 &Arot-Cl’orl dlbd.
underlying zoning of Residential Low (FU-2). The Land Use designation of the PUD is
Page 3
Date Prepared: August 10,2004
Meeting Date: September 7,2004
Ordinance 35,2004
Resolution 176,2004
Residential-Low (RL). The subject site has a gross density of 2.25 units per acre, which is
consistent with the underlying zoning. Please see attached Table 1 for details on surrounding
\ \
3
: >
policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. In this case, the best management practice requires
and & since no the priority be given to improve the lake accessmmtect the fauna
listed species are in harms way. The following goals, objectives and policies indicate the
specific consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed amendment:
Infrastructure Element
Goal 4.C.1.: Provide adequate city-wide drainag anagement for all property
in the City. L+;+ dou na
Objective 6.1.9.: The City, through its
improvements needed within the City
Conservation Element
Policy 6.1.2.1.: The C
management practices are
CONCURRENCY
LAW5 40 mn-FfrA7/0l
The already
improvements are required as a result of the proposed PUD arnmdmmt.
PROJECT DETAILS
Site Access
Pedestrian access and connectivity have been provided throughout the site through a system of
sidewalks. The proposed lake access pathway through the preserve will connect the existing 20-
foot wide lake maintenance easement to existing sidewalks within Princewood Lane right-of-
way, which is adjacent to Tract U-3. This will allow for improved access to the upland preserve
Q. cLcn Lnk
page4 q&L L-1 ‘11
bloc&
Date Prepared: August 10,2004
Meetlng Date: September 7,2004
Ordinance 35,2004 Ofrn L/wf* Resolution 176,2004
/xcr, arc ha br U36 #d Fmif/W* scumt/Cz /"4
and- * * The proposed access tract will also replace the two drainage tracts shown on
the site plan, but never platted.
0
5
Drainage TIAU dmhuy e.aencnk
The four 15-foot wide ''drainaPe tracts" shown on the amroved site ~lan do not exist.
Thew arc
five 1Zfoot wide drainage easements Dlatted on Drivate which tie the lake to the ovd
water management system. These ea.wents are dedicated to the HOA for drainage proposes,
which is different than lake maintenance. The infrastructure located within the drainage
needed.
d y I!
t
On May 25, 2004, the P1 d Appeals Board held a public hearing for this $r! petition. The Board's moti : denial to City Council failed because the vote was T; three - three. There was no
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Section 78-563(d), entitled Access to lake maintenance tract, reauires Dermanent mm to 8ccess
atting. The minimum preserve
8 + requirements setforth in the City's Land Development Re&= have been exr.eeuka-1 3
$m &,lakes and water bodies, acceptable to the City enheer. tbrou
Q, I!
Lo< _IICIY?LQ. Rather than eliminating the entire 0.81 &res fiom-its current preserve land stat& staff
believes converting a mall portion of this preserve to a more useful open space tract, which is
necessary to facilitate the lake maintenance access, is the best alternative.
Planned Unit
drainage and lake maintenance operation.
Date Prepared: August 10,2004
Meeting Date: September 7,2004
Ordinance 35,2004
Resolution 176,2004
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 35,2004 and Resolution 176,2004 with the following
condition:
1. The lake access pathway shall not be constructed until the replat for Tract U-3 has been
approved by the City Council and publicly recorded (City ForesterPlanning & Zoning).
o!!
c
Page 6
REASON 40 TO DENY:
CITY STAFF LEFT OUT IMPORTANT ISSUES DURING ITS MAY, 2004 P&Z
PRESENTATION.
1. Mr. Hendrickson did not advise the P&Z Commission that Preserve Tract U-3 was
created by City mandate and as mitigation for the destruction of preserve lands in the
Sanctuary.
2. Mr. Hendrickson advised the P&Z Commission that the cutting of the Preserve was
good as it serves as a firebreak.
a. The City Code states not to construct roads for firebreaks.
(See Document 1 attached)
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004
- 36 -
Page 36 of 37
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.133 1
Fax 561.776.9294
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
June 3,2004
Tala1 Benothman, Principal Planner
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Sanctuary Subdivision Preserve Area Tract U-3
Dear Ta la1 :
I would like to address the following issues with you. These issues arose during the May
25, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
A. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS NOT PROPERLY ADVISED THAT
PRESERVE TRACT U-3 WAS CREATED AS A RESULT OF AN ENFOREMENT
ACTION AGAINST PULTE AND AS MITIGATION REQUIRED BY THE CITY.
1. The City required that Tract 0-6 be preserved as mitigation for Pulte’s destruction of
preserved lands in another area of the Sanctuary. Pulte destroyed natural vegetation
and as a result of this destruction the City mandated that Tract 0-6 become a preserve.
This fact should have been made known to the Commission.
2. The attached Memo (Exhibit “A”) from the City Planning Staff to the Mayor and City
Council dated April 18, 1996 states that Pulte Homes dumped soil/muck/wood debris
along portions of the west and north sides of the Sanctuary project. On July 6, 1995 the
City issued a Notice of Violation to Pulte Homes stemming from the dumping without a
permit in an environmental area. On November 4, 1993 Pulte petitioned to amend the
PUD by adding utility easement and landscaping to the disturbed preserve area. The
Memo continues: “REGARDLESS, ACREAGE IS BEING SUBTRACTED FROM
AREAS THE CITY REGARDED AS PRESERVE LAND. STAFF FEELS THAT THERE
SHOULD BE COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS OF PRESERVE ACREAGE IN THE
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE TRACT, UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENTS.”
3. The Memo continues: “...staff recommends the following conditions: TRACT 0-
6 WITHIN THE SANCTUARY PLAT NO. 2 SHALL BE REPLATTED TO CHANGE
THE TRACT FROM OPEN SPACE STATUS TO PRESERVE STATUS.”
4. On April 11 1996 the City passed RESOLUTION 66, 1996. Resolution Condition 1
required that Plat 2 Tract “0-6” be replatted. Resolution Condition 2 required that Plat 2
“Tract 0-6” be replatted to change the tract from open space status to preserve status.
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
Tala1 Benothman
June 3,2004
Page 2
5. On July 29, 1996 Plat 2 Tract “0-6” was replatted by TRACT “U-3” (“Upland
Preserve”) as legally identified on THE SANCTUARY - REPLAT OF TRACT “0-6”
(“RE PLAT”).
6. The Subdivision Developer, HOA, Mayor of the City of Palm Beach Gardens (“City”),
City Clerk and City Engineer joined in and executed the REPLAT.
7. The Dedication on the REPLAT reads: “THIS CONSERVATION AREA MAY IN NO
WAY BE ALTERED FROM ITS NATURAL STATE. ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED WITHIN
THE CONSERVATION AREA INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO,
CONSTRUCTION OR PLACING OF BUILDINGS ON OR ABOVE THE GROUND;
DUMPING OR PLACING SOIL OR OTHER SUBSTANCES SUCH AS TRASH;
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF EXOTIC/NUlSANCE VEGETATION REMOVAL; ANY
OTHER ACTIVITIES DETRIMENTAL TO DRAINAGE, FLOOD CONTROL, WATER
CONSERVATIONl EROSION CONTROL, OR FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
CONSERVATION OR PRESERVATION.”
REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF TREES; SHRUBS OR OTHER VEGETATION-
8. Mr. Hendrickson asserts that the Sanctuary has excess Preserved Lands. He claims
that the removal of Tract U-3 lands from preservation status has no effect on the overall
preserved land calculations of the Subdivision. This argument has no relationship to the
fact that the Preserve was created by an enforcement action and as a penalty; as a
direct result of the Developer destroying Preserved lands. Whether there are 50 acres
of preserve or 100 acres is irrelevant. The City mandated that Tract U-3 be a Preserve.
9. Furthermore please see Exhibit “B”: This February 8, 1996 letter from the Principal
Planner of the City states: “THE OAK HAMMOCK PRESERVE ACREAGE IS
DIFFERENT THAN THE APPROVED SITE PLAN, THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM, BUT
THE CITY WILL BE REQUIRING THIS ENTIRE AREA TO BE REFLECTED AS
“PRESERVE” ON THE PLAT RATHER THAN OPEN SPACE”.
IO. Furthermore, please see Exhibit “C”. These November 6 & 7, 1995 letters assert that
Pulte will be mitigating for the destruction of the preserve. The mitigation involved
preserving Tract 0-6 as Tract U-3.
11 .The City, by its actions, has responsibility for the placement of the above-described
Restrictive Covenant on Tract U-3. Many Owners in the Sanctuary relied on the actions
of the City in purchasing their properties.
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.1331
Fax 561.776.9294
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
Tala1 Benothman
June 3,2004
Page 3
B. PULTE, THE DEVELOPER, DID NOT INITIATE THE PRESERVATION OF TRACT
0-6.
1. Mr. Hendrickson made the assertion that Puke applied for Preserve status on Tract
0-6 pursuant to an Application by the Developer. Enclosed is a copy of the Application
Exhibit “D”. There is no request to preserve Tract 0-6. This fact should have been made
known to the Commission. The Preservation of Tract 0-6 came as a result of the City’s
actions and imposed demands upon the Developer. The City should uphold its prior
actions and enforce its previous mandates.
C. DURING THE APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION, THE APPLICANT CONTINUALLY
STATEDTHATTHECHANGEOFTRACT0-6TOPRESERVESTATUSWASA
“MISTAKE”.
1. It was unbelievable that City representatives sat idle while the Petitioner and its
supporters stated over and over that the City mistakenly allowed the REPLAT. The
provided Exhibit “E” should eliminate all questions concerning mistake. Mr. Hendrickson
was personally involved in the REPLAT. This fact should have been made known to the
Commission. The City required the REPLAT, oversaw its creation and executed it. Is
this a mistake? I expected the City to assert that the REPLAT was not a mistake, but a
mandate of the City.
D. DURING THE APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION, THE APPLICANT CONTINUALLY
STATED THAT THE CHANGE OF TRACT 0-6 TO PRESERVE STATUS WAS
ONLY TO BE DONE ON A PORTlON OF TRACT 0-6.
1. I researched all files in the City’s possession and there is no reference to “portion”.
This fact should have been made known to the Commission. I expected the City to
assert that the REPLAT was not to be a portion of Tract 0-6, but all of Tract 0-6. Again
the City representatives did not object to the Applicant’s claims.
E. IT WAS STATED BY MR. HENDRICKSON THAT THOSE WHO OBJECTED ONLY
OBJECTED TO THE FIRST APPLICATION, BUT NOT TO THE SECOND
APPLICATION.
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561 382.133 1
Fax 561.776.9294
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
Tala1 Benothman
June 3,2004
Page 4
1. This is incorrect. The objections in the possession of the City state: “I object to any
alteration or any clearing of the Preserve Tract U-3 located on Princewood Lane in the
Sanctuary. I object to any removal or destruction of tress, shrubs or other vegetation
and desire the Preserve to remain as is.” This fact should have been made known to the
Commission.
F. MR. HENDRICKSON FAILED TO STATE THAT All OWNERS OF PROPERTY
SURROUNDING TRACT U-3 OBJECTED TO THE APPLICATION.
1. The assertion was made that only a few of the total Owners in the Sanctuary
objected. The enclosed plat shows the Owners that executed Objections to the
Application. This fact should have been made known to the Commission. There are
many other residents that object to this destruction of the Preserve; however is it really
necessary to involve more Owners? Do you want 50 Owners at the hearings to speak?
If the written objections are not enough then the Owners will appear at the next hearing.
The Owners that live near the Preserve are in total agreement that this should not be
done. See Exhibit ”F”.
I am pleased that 3 Commissioners voted against the actions of the HOA. I request that
a rehearing be given so that more accurate information could be provided to the
Commission prior to its vote. The Members of the P&Z Commission should revisit this
issue and take a careful look at all the facts.
Since re1 y ,
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Michael M. Gfesser, Esq.
Cc: Craig Kunkle, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission
Barry Present, Vice Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission
Joel Channing, Planning & Zoning Commission
Dennis Solomon, Planning & Zoning Commission
Michael T. Panczak, Planning & Zoning Commission
Douglas Pennell, Planning & Zoning Commission
Randolf Hansen, Planning & Zoning Commission
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.133 1
Fax 561.776.9294
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
June 3,2004
Talal Benothman, Principal Planner
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Sanctuary Subdivision Conservation Area Tract U-3
Dear Talal:
As you are aware, the HOA and the City are moving forward with violating my rights as
a property owner. I have stated for several years that there are Gopher Tortoises in
Tract U-3. They are often spotted in Tract U-3, along with owls, woodpeckers, snakes,
squirrels, turtles, etc. That is not unusual since Tract U-3 is a platted PRESERVE, as
such was required by the City in an enforcement action against Puke, the original
developer. There are environmentalists who agree that a 15 foot roadway through a
preserve allowing vehicular traffic, dogs and pedestrians will partially destroy the
Preserve and the habitat of these birds, animals and reptiles. Although the HOA will
provide a chain in an attempt to prohibit access, it is doubtful that a chain will be an
effective means of keeping people, dogs and children from entering the Preserve.
Mr. Hendrickson, when asked by the P&Z Commission if clearing the Preserve would
harm Tract U-3, stated that the clearing was acceptable, and that it will provide a
firebreak. This is an awful answer for someone who is a City Forester. Do we live in
Yellowstone? It is ridiculous to desire a firebreak in a small preserve. Any objective
person would state that this clearing could in fact have a detrimental effect on the
Preserve and the habitat of the animals therein. Enclosed are pictures of 2 Gopher
Tortoises in the Preserve. The Environmental Assessment of Tract U-3 is inaccurate.
Since re1 y ,
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Michael M. Gfesser, Esq.
Cc: Craig Kunkle, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission
Barry Present, Vice Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission
Joel Channing, Planning & Zoning Commission
Dennis Solomon, Planning & Zoning Commission
Michael T. Panczak, Planning & Zoning Commission
Douglas Pennell, Planning & Zoning Commission
Randolf Hansen, Planning & Zoning Commission
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.133 1
Fax 561.776.9294
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
I
June 8,2004
Tala1 Benothman, Principal Planner
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Sanctuary Subdivision Conservation Area Tract U-3
Dear Ta la1 :
I have examined the files at the City and there is no doubt that Tract 0-6 was converted
to Tract U-3 and designated a Preserve as mitigation for Pulte’s destruction of a
preserved area located in the Northwest corner of the Sanctuary. Do not let anyone try
to convince you otherwise.
Please review the attached documents.
) Sincerely,
I Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Michael M. Gfesser, Esq.
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.1331
Fax 561.776.9294
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
April 20, 2004
Mark I. Hendrickson, City Forester
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Sanctuary Subdivision Conservation Area
Dear Mark:
As you are aware I am trying to preserve a small yet valuable conservation area. Despite
the 5 access easement to the lake, the Association with the City’s blessing has decided to
create a Lake Maintenance Easement. The purpose of the Easement is to get a motor
vehicle and a boat to the Lake. In addition, there is talk about running electrical power to
the Lake. On July 6, 1999 you wrote a letter whereby you state,”An access for lake
maintenance equipment is out of the question.”
The Plat Dedication clearly reads: “THIS CONSERVATION AREA MAY IN NO WAY BE
ALTERED FROM ITS NATURAL STATE. ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED WITHIN THE
CONSERVATION AREA INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, CONSTRUCTION OR
PLACING OF BUILDINGS ON OR ABOVE THE GROUND; DUMPING OR PLACING
SOIL OR OTHER SUBSTANCES SUCH AS TRASH; REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF
TREES; SHRUBS OR OTHER VEGETATION.. .’I Approval of the Application clearly
violates this Restrictive Covenant. Unfortunately, your decision to violate the existing
Restrictive Covenant places a substantial amount of liability on the City. You are unfamiliar
with Florida Case Law regarding Restrictive Covenants and you failed to adequately
research Restrictive Covenants and their enforceability. There are many Florida Court
decisions and treaties written on the subject. If you failed to become familiar with this area
of law then you have done a disservice to the City.
Aside from violating the Restrictive Covenant on the Upland Preserve, the City is violating
its own Code.
Section 102-2 of the City Code provides “The Purpose of this chapter is to preserve and
protect the ecological values and functions of the city’s natural resources and
environmentally significant lands from alterations that would result in the loss or significant
degradation of these habitats, thereby increasing the amount of and quality of open space,
and to ensure the protection and conservation of these natural resources and
environmentally significant lands in perpetuity.” The approval of the Application violates
this.
The City has not required nor has it received all documents required by Sec. 102-8.
The City has not complied with Sec.102-9 (5) a
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.133 1
Fax 561.882.2412
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
The City will violate Sec. 102-10 (2) b. This requires the preserve to be “preserved in
viable condition, with intact canopy, understory, and ground cover and maintained without
infringement by drainage or utility easements”. The 15 foot clearing will not keep the
canopy, understory or ground cover intact. Also, utility easements are not allowed. The
running of electrical power over the Access Easement will amount to it being a utility
easement. If FPL is in any involved inn the electrical permitting, it will require an easement.
The City will violate Sec. 102-10 (3). The alteration in the Preserve is limited to “The
construction of Boardwalks, pervious walkways, and other passive recreational or
educational facilities”. The proposed 15 foot Lake Access Easement does not fall under
this. It is certainly not a boardwalk and a walkway by definition excludes motorized
vehicles.
The City will violate Sec. 102-10 (5) e. If the City approves the Lake Access Easement, the
Preserve will be severed in two and the uplands will not be preserved intact. .
Sec. 102-1 1 (c) requires appropriate Deed Restrictions to be placed on the Preserve,
which Restrictions are granted in perpetuity. This was accomplished with the Restrictive
Covenant placed on the Preserve by Plat.
Sec. 102-1 1 (d) requires perpetual maintenance and protection of the Preserve.
Sec 102-1 1 (d) (5) requires retention of the Preserve by the Association and the Preserve
shall remain undivided. Each lot owner’s interest shall be preserved, protected and
maintained through recorded covenants running with the land. Title shall be
unencumbered for the perpetual benefit of the public. All future use shall be consistent with
the preservation space intent and purpose.
The Environmental Assessment does not comply with all of the requirements of the City
Code.
I have filed a lawsuit against the Sanctuary PBG Homeowners Association, Inc. to enforce
the Restrictive Covenant placed upon the Property. The lawsuit does not include the City. I
request that the Application submitted by the Association be tabled until outcome of the
lawsuit. If the City approves the Application I will need to amend the lawsuit.
Since re I y ,
Michael M. Gfesser, Esq.
Cc: Charles Wu
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.133 1
Fax 561.882.2412
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
June 1,2004
Talal Benothman, Principal Planner
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Sanctuary Subdivision Conservation Area Tract U-3
Dear Talal:
Enclosed please find the Complaint filed against the Sanctuary HOA. This Complaint is
being amended to include the Directors of the Association.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Since re I y ,
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Michael M. Gfesser, Esq.
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.1331
Fax 561.776.9294
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
May 21 , 2003
Tala1 Benothman, Principal Planner
City Of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Sanctuary Subdivision Conservation Area Tract U-3
Dear Ms. Benothman:
Enclosed please find the letter and Exhibits provided to Charles Wu. The City Forester
is trying to circumvent regulatory agencies, recorded restrictions and approved plats. I
do not believe that this issue should wind up in the court system.
If there is anything else that you need please advise.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Since re1 y ,
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Michael M. Gfesser, Esq.
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 56 1 382.1 33 1
Fax 561.882.2412
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
August 29,2003
Mark I. Hendrickson, City Forester
City Of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Sanctuary Subdivision Conservation Area
Dear Mark:
Thank you for your letter of August 19, 2003. I assume that you are aware that there is a
higher authority than the Code of the City of Palm Beach Gardens. There are Statutes and
case law handed down by Judges and Jurists that specifically contradict the proposed
actions of the HOA and the City of Palm Beach Gardens. Your letter and all of your logic
fail to acknowledge the Restrictive Covenant on Tract U-3 and the legal rights of those
affected by it. Case Law in the State of Florida has consistently upheld restrictive
covenants and I am sure that this case will be no exception. In the case at hand the Site
Plan, the Army Corps Permit and the SFWMD Permit all indicate that Tract U-3 was to be
preserved. The Mayor of Palm Beach Gardens and the City Engineer executed a Plat that
specifically states that Tract U-3 cannot be altered. The City cannot take those embedded
legal rights away by public hearings. The owners of property pursuant to the Plat acquired
legal rights that cannot be wiped out by a PUD amendment. Restrictive covenants don’t
just come and go they are permanent and run with the land.
The City should consult a competent attorney concerning the restrictive covenant that
reads: “THIS CONSERVATION AREA MAY IN NO WAY BE ALTERED FROM ITS
NATURAL STATE. ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AREA
INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, CONSTRUCTION OR PLACING OF BUILDINGS
ON OR ABOVE THE GROUND; DUMPING OR PLACING SOIL OR OTHER
SUBSTANCES SUCH AS TRASH; REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF TREES; SHRUBS
OR OTHER VEGETATION ...’I The fact that you believe that the City can authorize the
violation of this restrictive covenant is dead wrong, particularly when the City demanded it.
Since re I y ,
Michael M. Gfesser, Esq.
Cc: Charles Wu
Christine Tatum
Tala1 Benothman
Beverly Jamason
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 561.882.1331
Fax 561.882.2412
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
October 9,2003
Mark I. Hendrickson, City Forester
City Of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Sanctuary Subdivision Upland Preserve Tract U-3
Dear Mark:
The Application submitted to the City of Palm Beach Gardens contains several errors and
inaccuracies. It is interesting on how you are precluding the full dissemination of
information on this matter. From review of the Association files it is apparent that you are
“coaching” them through this.
You have left out important information in your presentation of this matter to the Planning
and Zoning Commission. You should revisit this and advise the Commission of all of the
facts.
Sincerely,
Michael M. Gfesser, Esq.
Cc: Charles Wu
Christine Tatum
Tala1 Benothman
Beverly Jamason
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 56 1.882.1 33 1
Fax 561.882.2412
Michael M. Gfesser, PA
Attorney At Law
October 7,2003
Mark I. Hendrickson, City Forester
City Of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Sanctuary Subdivision Upland Preserve
Dear Mark:
I have not received a response to my last letter advising you that the City may not violate
the restrictive covenant contained on the Plat. I have conducted extensive legal research
into the restrictive covenant existing on the Plat of Tract U-3. I can assure you that your
actions will violate the legal rights of each and every Lot Owner that purchase Lots in the
Sanctuary.
Not only will Lot Owners be entitled to uphold the restrictive covenant and prevent the
City’s violation of it, but the City will be liable for fees and damages.
Since re1 y ,
Michael M. Gfesser, Esq.
Cc: Charles Wu
Christine Tatum
Tala1 Benothman
Beverly Jamason
63 1 US Highway One, Suite 308
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone 56 1.882.1 33 1
Fax 561.882.2412
REASON 41 TO DENY:
THE P&Z COMMISSION DID NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD
AMENDMENT.
1. 3 of 6 COMMISSIONERS WERE ABLE TO ASCERTAIN THE SERIOUS
IMPLICATIONS OF THE PUD AMENDMENT.
2. IN A 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION I WAS ABLE TO CONVINCE HALF OF THE
COMMISSION THAT THE PUD AMENDMENT IS UNLAWFUL AND NONCOMPLIANT.
3. WITH THIS DOCUMENT AND YOUR ABILITY TO RESEARCH THE CITY CODE AND
COMP PLAN ALL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOULD VOTE TO DENY THE PUD
AMENDMENT.
APPROVAL OF AN UNPAVED ROAD IN A PRESERVE IS BAD PRECEDENT.
City Council Presentation
September 28,2004
- 37 -
Page 37 of 37
October 1. 2004
Palm Beach County City Council
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Preserve - Tract U-3
Sanctuary Subdivision
.-
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a resident of The Sanctuary subdivision. I support the need to maintain the
lake within our community and I support the approval and construction of a 15-foot
wide mulched pathway through Tract U-3 for access to maintain the lake.
Sincerely,
Signature: I
I Address: &fp
FL 3?4W