Golf Course Problem 2011, Theodore Levy Letter & Second Coalition Document Regarding Mizner Trail Golf Course, April 17, 2011

~,
,. J-:CoR-UTJRJIJJIfJH.ItV_GULF-I-E7-»I£*:
Tcl:{56I)- 640-949J I'n.

t56§li
UDion (.."oimIy. NJ..; (901)-352· J600 (88&)-829-1698
THEODORE LEVY
305 Greenbrier A
West Palm Beach, Florida 33417
April 17,2011
UCO; LEITERS TO EDITOR:
Re: Our Golf CD.,.. Problems
1) The Palm Beach County Zoning Board has demonstrated its fairness and
impartiality. In addition to its recent :favorable decision concerning OUT
'Golfs Edge' matter~ it has also just in Marc~ 2011 issued a 'Mimer Trail
Golf Course' decision.
2) The legal precedent is "'on paine': Same circumstances, same state &
county, same zoning board, same zoning code, same year,. same size golf
course; an inadvertent, lucky~ made-to-order, legal precedent.
3) Its circumstances so exactly replicate our golfcourse dispute, but for a
change ofname & a~ it is virtually our exact~. A developer bad
purchased an 18-bole golf course abutting a Palm Bach County
residential condominium development, and sought a zoning approval to
build houses tbereon9
4) Vigorously fought by the developer,. and vigorously opposed by the
various associations within the development - and the subsequent
hearings~ etc. - it was just last month finallydecided and. ruled thar the
developer had made an "unfortunate investment". Even the phrase " .•. in
perpetuity" was invoked.
5) Nei:fuer our opposing developer nor any other developer appears to have
much likely success, " ... in perpetuity" towards building residential
housing facing our wonderful and beautiful Century Village.
6) Two nice results:
a) I am in possession ofthe complete, ~ book comprehensively
reciting the actual res~ defensive position and lawyers defensive
Page 1 of2
. '
"""-IW."vHJI~.r"'_~;;r1U-·~~A:t
position in the [Palm Beach County] 'Mizner Trail Golf Course'

matter, including the [successful} detailed legal papers signed &
submitted by each of its opposing development associations, including
the points to have been considered by the zoning authority, and
resulting in its final decision denying the rezoning.
b) I freely offer it to our Century Village. In addition to its guidance, it

should be helpful in vastly reducing our (otherwise large) legal costs..
c) Where is our developer going? Unless our developer plans to go into

the golf course business, the likelihood of another developer stepping
into' his shoes appears tenuo~ to say the least.
i) lnstead of our facing a decrease in our property values resulting

from developer's proposed housing deve{opmen~ we might work
out a mutually interesting takeout and instead use the property
ourselves to beautify our development and enhance our property
values..
d) C aution: "Don't count your chickens before they hatch": We are

handed a good case~ but we shall need an appropriate lawyer to
oppose a wealthy~ very determineci developer who is legally betting
n all in" to get his way.
e) In any case, we should not use just any lawyer to "re-invent the
wheel". Oms is nota cake walk... The choice ofa lawyer is neither a
beauty contest nor a popularity contest.
f) A Jawyer~s work has already been done; it would be largely a matter

ofsubstituting names in its computer.
(l)The Jaw finn used by the MimerTrail condominium owners
would appear to have a successful~ proven, track record of
blocking a housing development to replace a golf course.
(2)Furthermore, their legal research and legal strategy is already
behind ~ hopefully leading to a significantIy-reducedlegal
cost for us to pay.
Page2-of2
SECOND COALITION AGAINST
rv'lIZNER DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNITIES OPPOSED TO THE CONVERSION
OF
MIZNER TRAIL GOLF COURSE
JANUARY, 2010
communities with signed resolutions, etc.

SECOND COALITION AGAINST MIZNER DEVELOPMENT
November, 2010
communities opposed To The Conversion of Mizner Trail Golf Course
community
Number of Households
Addison point 172
Arbor club 300
camino woods I 49
camino woods II 60
canary palm club 86
Cloisters 100
Fairway village 56
Golf vista 25
The Greens 46
La Costa 116
Ironwedge 188
La Joya 67
Marbella 99
palladium 35
Palms of Boca Del Mar 320
patios Del Mar II 35
Reflections 300
wellesley park 53
windrift 52
woodbrier 26
2185
Page 1
- -- - - - - -- -- - - -- - -
I I
I Fire ' Amberwoods
! StaUon:
Tiburon""
~.. #55 ...~:=::=~f?3!2:£!Ce!l.~~::==::
N
,, Boca
Casa Park
Nueva
t-.--..,.' .....,.~~. ~."7'.:"r;-_.,,,'--m~, ~--. "'J-->:."" .. ,--"~.,,-.-r-:-= : -. '7:"",..,.,... .' ~ P.a.lmetto · Park ·. Road -....
'tI I ' , I I I
~ " : Woodhaven ~ 'Wind·, Boca I I B ca
Colony
rr \ . I Condo I ~song :Palms: Boca :Co?onv WoodS
, I Place I
I I
Hamor Town
--j
Communities Opposed to Conversion
Of
Mizner Trail Golf Course
I
I
I
I
~. -
1(0)
December 29, 2010
To: Members of the Palm Beach County Planning and Zoning Board, and County Commissioners
From : The Second Coalition Against Mizner Development
Re: Mizner Trail Zoning Application 2010 - 1728
The Coalition represents thousands of households living around the Mizner Trail Golf
Course, which is the subject of a request to change zoning to permit building of 390 housing units
on the golf course. We have read the Development Order Amendment Request submitted by the
Siemens Corp, the development company and would like to respond to numerous inaccuracies
and misrepresentations in that request.
With Regard to the Maximum Allowable Density Argument:
The Siemens Development Request states that their proposal meets the Palm Beach
County Comprehensive Plan future land use development guidelines of 8 dwelling units per acre.
However, the Master Plan which established the Boca Del Mar P.U.D. allocated all Master Plan
"units" available in Boca Del Mar to the various homeowner associations within Boca Del Mar.
The previous County Commission decision in 2008 which rejected the previous development plan
acknowledged that there were no available units to be "recaptured" in future housing proposals
and thus the golf course was to remain as green space. This discussion is reflected in the
minutes of that 2008 meeting when the vote to reject was taken. It is the contention of the
Coalition, and the homeowners it represents, that there is no justification on any basis to change
the Master Plan to accomodate a golf course owner who made a bad business decision in buying
a property not zoned for housing.
With Regard to the Changed Conditions Argument:
It is ingenuous for Siemens Development to argue that the deteriorating condition of the
golf course justifies a Master Plan change in order to build houses when the owner of the golf
course, who has an agreement to sell to Siemens contingent upon getting a zoning change ,
created the problem by shutting down the golf course in order to "blackmail" the community into
supporting a development proposal.
Further, Siemens tries to justify development by stating that "it is not probable that the
subject property will ever retum to being a golf course" because there is no demand for gOlf.
Apart from just being Mr. Siemens' opinion, once again there is no proof that this is so. In Judge
Gerber's opinion in 2008, rejecting the suit brought by Mr. Bliss and Mr. Comparato, he stated that
the owners had not substantiated their claim that a golf course could not be profitable. In fact, he
noted that the owners had not managed the course in such a way for,jt to be profitable. Not only
is there a potential demand for golf as demonstrated by the planned profitability of the new Osprey
Pt. Golf Course in W . Boca Raton, but there are several golf courses in Boca that have been
bought by private investors since 2008.
Yes, the golf course has become the "attractive nuisance" Mr. Siemens claims, but that is
wholely due to the neglect by the owner of the golf course and it is certainly not a justification to
re-zone the property for a development that brings no benefit to the homeowners of Boca Del Mar,
who, in fact, will face lower values for their properties, destruction of valuable green space and
increased traffic and crowding in schools.
With Regard to the Impact Argument:
Once again the County has certified a development proposal for this golf course based on
County traffic performance stand'ards These are minimum standards Fully-developed, this
project would lead to 800 additional cars on new roads lying close to ex~sting homes and emptying
onto existing roads already heavily-travelled. The last development proposal for Mizner was
certified also by the County Staff as to traffic impact, but the proposal was still rejected by the
County because the property was planned to remain as golf course or green space in perpetuity
and would , if approved, violate the integrity of a model planned unity development.
With regard to housing values, Mr Siemens maintains that pro,perty values will be
improved by his development. Given the current housing market and existing inventory of unsold
houses and condos, which most experts feel will take years to work down , it may be years before
demand warrants new housing. There certainly is no demand now, and if new housing were
warranted, there are plenty of other pfaces in Palm Beach County where it could be built without
destroying this existing lanned community. It is a truism in real estate that new construction will
attract buyers more than existing housing at the same price point. Homeowners in communities
around the golf course have already seen their property values fall because of the clOSing of the
golf course and the recession. Building houses right behind them win only compound their
problem .
With Regard to Revenue for the County:
The argument that the project would result in increased revenue for the County is also
specious. First, impactand permit fees are one-time expenses so that the real, on-going ad
valorem tax revenue would be only the $2,500,000 projected; secondly, that would be offset by a
decline in revenue from existing homes due to their decreased value with the loss of a golf course
and green space; thirdly, that tax income would only be after the project is fully built which Mr.
Siemens acknowledges would take 10 years; and finally, that amount of additional tax revenue is
a minute portion of the County budget. In a meeting with Cmmr. Abrams, he acknowledged that
the tax revenue argument is not compelling enough to justify a zoning change.
With Regard to the Boca Del Mar Improvement Association:
Mr. Siemens stated that there is future uncertainty for the golf course because of a 2003
agreement between the BDMIA and the property owner restricting the property's use to a golf
course, which expires in 2012. Aside from the fact that only the County can make zoning changes
affecting the use of the golf course, this agreement is probably an illegal document since it was
never approved by a majority of unit owners in Boca Del Mar. Please see Exhibit 1, a letter from
Sachs, Sax and Klein to the BDMIA dated 2/18/05 , listing the reasons why the amendment to the
original Declaration of Restrictions may be invalid . Finally, the original Declaration of Restrictions
provided that said restrictions could be automatically extended beyond 12131/2012 for successive
periods of 10 years and that any amendments must be approved by 75% of unit owners. So there
is no "drop dead" date of 2012 and the amended declaration referred to by Mr Siemens has
never been approved by unit owners.
Mr. Siemens refers to a mailing to homeowners that had positive feedback We don't
know where he gets this information. Public meetings for homeowners scheduled by the BDMIA
Board to get input uniformly had negative feedback. In fact, Mr. McDermott, President of BDMIA,
polled attendees at each meeting: all in attendance objected to the development and expressed a
preference for the property to remain as a golf course or green space, with a public park or
recreation faciltiy being other possibilities. The overwhelming negative feedback is reflected in the
petitions and resolutions in this package. They are signed by most of the communities around the
golf course and represent more than 2,000 households. Finally, acknowledging the overwhelming
opposition of the community. the BDM IA Board recentjy voted to oppose the proposed
development. (See Exhibit 2) .
Regarding Alternative Uses:
Althou9h Mr.Siemens maintains no viable use for the property has been brought forth, his
view is understandable: the owner of the golf course has no interest in an alternative proposal
because he wants to make money by selling the property, and Mr Siemens wants to make money
by building houses .
Should the County not oblige the developer once again by refusing to change the zoning,
alternatives should be explored . The golf course owner could sell the property to the County or
the Boca Raton Beach and Parks district for use as a public park or recreation facility or to a
public/private partnership consisting of the BDMIA and a governmental entity at the current
appraised value. Or it could be restored by the owners to its original use as a golf course or sold
to a group of investors who could restore it as a golf course. The Coalition and the homeowners
of Boca Del Mar cannot make decisions controlling the future of the property; however, we have
indicated to our representative, Cmmr. Abrams , the Beach and Parks District and the BDMIA that
we would like to work with whomever to develop a creative solution that would be to "the great
benefit of the community".
For all the above reasons, we respectfully request that the P,lanning and Zoning Board
and the County Commissioners deny, once again, a proposal to build houses on the Mizner Trail
Golf Course and provide leadership to help find a permanent solution that will contribute to the
quality of life in Boca Del Mar, not detract from it.
The Second Coalition Against Mizner Development

R A L F B ROO K E S, A T TOR N E Y
Board C ertified in Cit)', COlln(y and L~){(JI G OI'<!mfIJe!lt I-Liw
November 10, 2010
Re: Mizner Tra iil Redevelopment Proposal
Dear Palm Beach County:
The proposed redevelopmentof the Mizner Tra\l, golf course fails to

protect the Boca Del Mar community from the loss of the Mizner Trail
Golf Course as a platted recreational golf course as open green space
amenity within the planned development community master plan.
I represent the Second Coalition Against Mizner Development, Inc.,
Rosemary Nixon a resident of Boca Del Mar community and other
affected citizens and we object to the redevelopment plan.
The renewed application proposes to eliminate a golf course that is

functionally and holistically integrated into an existing community. This
is significant given the merits of the golf course as an amenity for the
Boca Del Mar community at large.
The integration of open space corridors and features such as golf

courses,lakes, and other passive 'l andscapes into residentiall
environment has worked exceptionally well in Boca Del Mar and
should continue. Such spaces offer separation and insulation fro lm
neighboring development, contribute to the sense of place that is
Boca Del Mar and provide appreciab'l e visual corridors, passive
recreation opportunities, and uphold the general, character of a
suburban residential environment. This concept is imminent~ y
reflected throughout the Boca Del IM ar master pl,an.
This proposal to be grossly inadequate to mitigate the adverse

impacts of the proposed development, particularly in light of the
unique circumstances of this application and integral nature of the
subject site within the surrounding residential environment. The
intent of the ULDC is to maintain the sense of place and character and
the stability of present and future land uses in Palm Beach including
built communities like Boca Del Mar.
In furtherance of th ,is intent, the ULDC requires a Planned
Developments be governed by a master plan that prescribes the uses,
density, access, configuration, and other elements and site conditions of
all lands within the Planned Development boundary. The Master Plan
operates as the controUing document for any Planned Development and
is rel ied upon by those who reside and build within the Pl anned
Development after it is approved. The master plan is binding upon
landowners, their successors and assi'9'ns; and constitutes the development
regulations for development within the Community.
The master plan for the Boca Del Mar PUD has forever identified subject
site excluSively for golf course and ancillary uses and has perpetuaUy
been planned, designed, and constructed as feature for the adjacent
residential components of Boca Del Mar rather than as a stand-alone,
adjacent parcel of 'Iand with no direct relation to or interaction with other
parts of the Boca Del Mar community as a holistic environment. To this
end, the conversion of this integral master plan component from an open
space golf course format to a deve~loped residential building state:
• confiicts with the original design concept of Boca Del Mar;
• discounts and adversely affects the planning, locational
configuration of adjacent residential areas;
• undermines the purposeful placement and orientation of existing
residential buildings along a scenic open space corridor,
• neglects the longstanding promise to property owners, renters, and
com ,mun.ity members alike of a:
ocomprehensive and holist,ic open space element as part of a
omaster planned development program;
o compromises the integrity of the Boca Del Mar master plan; and
oundermines the intended stability behind the concept of a master
planned communi,t y.
For each of these reasons, the proposed site p lan is inconsistent

with the original approvals issued under the ULDC and
expectations for this PUD District. There is inadequate justification
for the proposed additional units and assignment of addiltional
dens:i ty on the golf course site.
The unique features of the site and reliance of the neighborhood on

the original, express plat conditions which show the use as golf
course dem'onstrates the inappropriateness of re-designating the
subject sIte for any use other than golf course open space. The
natural constraints for developing the subject tracts are severely
limited due to the:
• narrow width and configuration of these tracts;
• the location of existing cana li s, water bodies and easements;
• the limited geographic opportunities for gaining access to these
tracts; and
• ULDC regulat:ions for other development considerations such as
odrainage,
osetbacks,
olandscaping and buffering,
oaccess drive dimensions,
oparking.
The potential for a site desi,gn that reflects exemplary standards
currently in place in Boca Del Mar and which responds to the site's
surroundings is severely limited and is NOT represented in the
current redevelop'm ent pl'an.
There are no changed conditions or circumstances that require a

modification. The applicant contends that the requests address
housing needs in southern Pal,m Beach County and the limited
availability of new housing i'n the vicinity of the subject site.
However, the appl'icant fails to quantify this position. There is an
oversupply of housi'ng and there are many approved but not yet
built housing units in Palm, Beach County. There are no findings
that demonstrate a housing shortage or that i'ndicate why the
subject golf course site would be parti,cularly well suited as opposed
to other lands with approvals at similar densities that have not yet
been developed.
The a ppli,ca nt also presents no testimony to address the supply,

demand, and alleged importance of new housing opportunities as
opposed to resale, rental, or other alternatives for existing housing
opportunities within Boca Del Mar and the surrounding
communities. There is no evidence under current market
conditions and we cannot support the applicant's justification of
changed conditions on the basis of local housing s·i tuations.
The applicant also alludes to difficu 'l ties encountered by golf courses
and goes further to identify other facilities in Palm Beach County
that have endured difficulty and sought transformation to
alternative uses. However, the applicant fails to identify any of the
measures taken by these other courses to overcome adversities.
The applicant also fails to draw similarities between these sites and
the subject site in order to establish the relevance of site
comparisons.
The applicant also fails to indicate any efforts (such as

advertising and marketing, adjustment in membership dues,
change in price scheduling, corporate restructuring, other business
and management-oriented actions, upkeep and maintenance, sale
to other interested parties, and so on) undertaken by the property
owners in attempt to reverse current trends facing the facility and
alleviate hardships.
Furthermore, considerati,on of the ongoing success experienced by

the other golf course that exists within Boca Del Mar is not
sufficiently addressed in the applicant's application. Addit,i onal
consideration of alternative uses for the property shourd be explored,
such as an instructional or alternative golfing venues and designs,
and other recreational park facilities that could function within the
site's existing open space format.
The applicant suggests that a dramatic ,i ncrease in golf course

construction in the vicin ity of the site has created additional
competition and market saturation. However, no evidence is
supplied to support this claim. What's more, fundamental supply
and demand mechanics of a rational, free-market economic
system would suggest that continued golf course construction
signifies unmet market demand for such facilities despite
prevaBing competition.
1
While a quantitative decline in customer base may impact
business receipts, such does not render the eXisting use
assignment (i.e. golf course) or physical' placement of the subject
site entirely obsol,ete. Accordingly, we cannot conclude and object
to this application as not justified by the alleged change in
circumstance, development trends or the local golf course industry.
Taken as a whole, we consider the changed adverse impacts and

conditions that Boca Del :M ar residents and its many internal and
surrounding communities would endure if the current redevelopment
request was approved to far exceed any preva iling economic Climate
or change in operationar development circumstances alleged to
justify the requests.
The subject site serves not merely as a golf course, but is a

PLATTED passive green space corridor, and a functional and
integrated component of the surrounding residential' environment, and
a naturalistic boundary between adjacent residential, areas; aU within a
planned environment that intentionally and purposefully incorporated a
significant open space element for the adjacent residential areas.
The pl,at of the subject site includes a dedication for the express
purpose of golf course rather than dedicated open space. Article
1. E.1.C. of the ULDC establishes that information clearly shown on an
approved plan or other development order shall' rema ,in valid and
not be subject to current requirements. Since the subject site is
dearly an on various devel:opment orders (i.e. master plan, site pl,an,
and plat) as golf course, this acreage may not be retired and
redeveloped with residential buildings or for any purpose other than
fulfilling the golf course reflected on the Boca Del Mar :m aster pia n.
The app.l icant has provided no indication that these multifaceted

functions and characteristics have changed since the golf course
was originally deSignated on the Boca Del Mar master plan in 1971.
As an integral' open space component and unifying el:ement of the
established community, the loss of this space would inevitably redefine
the character, identify, and image of Boca Del Mar and the surrounding
area without any foreseeable benefits to the larger community.
The courts have recognized the ability of local government to enforce
such conditions in prior development master plan approvals and
plats.
Most r ecently, in Palm Beach Polo, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, the

court considered a request to develop Big Blue despite a similar PUD
Master Plan open space designation. The courts required Palm Beach
Polo to comply with the original PUD Master Plan's restrictions by
preserving Big Blue and protecting it from alteration and
development activities. The court upheld' these restrictions despite a
land u se deSignation that assigned a higher density under the
comprehensive plan. And the court held that the denial of
development on the Big Blue portion of the site plan and plat did not
result in a takings or Bert J. Harris claim for damages. Palm Beach
Polo, Inc. v. Village of Wellington 918 So.2d 988, 994 (Fla.App. 4
Dist.,2006), rev denied Fla S Ct. at 929 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 2006).
In fact, the court has already upheld the denial of redevelopment of

the Mizner Trail golf course under the master plan and plat conditions
and rejected takings and Bert J. Harris claims arising from the denial.
Mizner Trail Golf Club v Palm Beach County Case No. 2006CA4094 AB
(August 18, 2008) As Circuit Judge Gerber noted in the Mizner Trail
final judgement, the "Pal,m Beach Polo case is virtua'lly on point
[identica l] with thi!s case [Mizner TraH]." In :M izner Trail, Judge
Gerber upheld Palm Beach County's denial of Mizner Golf Course
development based in findings that:
1. This request Is not consIstent With the intent of the Palm Beach
County Unified Land Development Code.
2. This request does not minimize adverse effects on adjacent
lands.
3. This request would cause loss of an integral open space
component and unifying element of an established community.
4. This request is inconsistent with provisions of the Palm Beach
County Unified Land Development Code regarding layout.
function, and general development characteristics.
5. 111is request Is not supported by changed circumstances that
require a modification .
Judge Gerber held in Mizner Trail v Palm Beach County that:
Under either set of factors, Mizner has not shown by the greater; wejght~f
the evidence that the County's denial of Mizner's application resulted ~
As stated above, the County's denial of MiZner's application is not what causedl.l:le
negative econornlc impact upon the property. Rather. the pre-eXisting master
plan's agreed-upon restriction to maintain the 43 acrcs as a golf course, cOl1lulned
with market forces, diIninished the property's value. Moreover, Mizner's claim
that the econornlc impact df the County's denial amounted to a decrease In value
from $35.4 million to zero lacked credibility. The $35.4 million figure arose from
a sale contract between Mizner and one of its general partner's affiliates, which
this court found not to be an arm's length transaction.
However, even if this court were to find that the County's dental of Mizner's
application diminished the property's value, the other factors still would outweigh
that finding. Most bnportantly, as stated above, Mlznci' has not shown that theil'
representatives had reasonable e"-J>CCtations. "'Whether or not expectations are
considered reasonable will depend on whether the property owner had notice ill
advanCe of his investment decision that the governmental regulations which are
alleged to constitute the taking had been or would be enacted." Golf Club of
Plantation. Inc. v. City of Plantation.. 717 So. 2d 166, 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
Here, Mizner's representatives had constructive notice before their investment that
the master plan imposed restrictions on the south course's use. for which the
County compensated the origlnal developer by allocating the south course's
development rights to Boca Del Mar's other parcels. Thus, Mizner's
representatives reasonably should nol have expected Lo be able to develop the 43
acres. The fact that the County even considered Mizner's application was to
Mizner's advantage. As articulated in Palm Beach Isles Assoc. v. U.S.. 231 F.3d
1354. 1363 (Fed. CiT, 2000):
The purchaser who buys a parcel with a known and valid

regulatory restriction on certain uses cannot complain that she
thereafter sustains an economic loss when the restriction is enforced.
In sum. "It Is the function ofthe legislative body charged with responsibility
for protecting and enhancing the health. welfare, and safety of the public to weigh
Ibe advantages and disadvantages of rezoning property.~ Marell v. Hardy. 450 So.
2d 1207, 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Here. the evidence shows that the County,
through its staff and commlssiont~rs, weighed those 3dvantagcs and
disadvantages, iUld in the interest of protecting their perceived welfare of lhe
surrounding neighborhoods, denied Mizner's applicallon to change the 13 acres'
use from golf course to residential. Mizner has not proved a taking.
While a few years have passed since Judge Gelber's decision, the
material factors set forth above have not.
We hope that you will continue to see the value in preserving and
protecting the open space of the Bocal Del Mar community and will
deny the subject application.
Thank you,
~ 5/----
Ralf Brookes Attorney
~
CER'rn'IED

'~F'(mllar
a Tv.-COJN'rY AiiJ
! OC..AI OCI'IH(HM-Nl
<
Ralf Brookes Attorney - Board Certified in ei!y, COlin!} and uta! Covemment LAw
lV1VJV. [vd03rookeJ. "iltorney. ( Olt!
1217 East Cape Coral ParJ..-way # 107, Cape Coral, Fl()rida .')1')04
phone (2)'») CJ1()- .5464 fax (H66) 141 (jOH(, ('l11ad : 1~;dl (!l ) I~:11i I\rtll\ k (' ~ \ II Il I'I It' \, , ' 1I1l1
If
$tcH sSAx KLaN
ATWRHEYSAT LAW
UAl.NG ADOf£$
9JrrE-t1S0
POST OHICEOOX 810037
301 YAIrAATO AOAO
BOCA .... roN. ROfOIOA 33.81~037
)CA f¥. TON, R.ORlOA 33431
Till»< ON E (561) 994 ,4499

OIRS:TLlNE (561)237.a612
S'lNCER M. so..x, ES:l.
• .mllll: ~QDllWtflrm.com
.;o.C,""1.£ (561)994-4965
February 18, 2005
VIA CERTIRED MAIL

RElVRN RECElPT REQUESrED
Boca Del Mar Improvement Asrociation, Inc.
c/o Paul McDermott, President
6018 SW, 18'h Sreet
Boca Raton, Rorida 33433
Re: Amendments to Declarations of ReSrictions

OUf Client: South County Coalition
Our File No.: 5596.01
Dear Gentlepeopl e:
Rease be advised that S:lchsSvcKlein has been retained to represent theSJuth County
Coalition concerning certain Amendments to the Declarations of ~rictions concerning
Tracts 64-A, 64-8, 64-C, and 64-0 of Boca Del' Mar NO.7. As you ere aNa-e, the
crnendments made significa1t chalges to the Declarations in order to permit the po~bility
of residential development on Tracts64-B and 64-C. These Tracts, according to the original
development plan, were to be used for no purpO!:e other then for a golf cou~ and
customarily related activities.
It appears that the proposed am~dmentsmay be invalid on anumberofbases. Courts

require that a power to emend a Declaration be exercised in a reas:>nable mcl1ner S) as to not
destroy the general plan e.g. Nelle v. Loch Haven Homeowners' A!:OOcjatio,n, 413 SJ.2d 28
(Ra. 1982); Holiday Pines Property Owners' Asoociation. Inc. v. Wetherington, 596 SJ,2d
284 (Ra 4th DCA 1992). The original plan of development for Boca Del Mar required that
Tracts 64-8 and 64-C be dedicated to the purpo!:e of a golf courre and customarily related
:3Ctivities. It is unrearonable for thecrnendmentsto entirely chcnge the cha-acter of Wihat was
Originally prescribed by the Declarations.
!:econd, §720.306(1 Xc), RoridaSatutes, limitstheabilityto amend Declarations. A-ior

to JJly 1, 2003, an amendment which affected a "vested righr required unanimous conrent
of all of the record owners as well' as the record owners of liens. Effective lJly 1,2003,
§720.306(1 Xc), RoridaSatutes, was amended to preclude certain l:pecified actionsincluding
providing that an amendment may not materially and cdver9:!ty alter the proportionate voting
interest appurtenant to a parcel unless the record pa-cel owner Cfld all record owners of liens
oin in the execution of the amen,dment.
Raca D al Mar Latter
~bruary 18. 2005
~a2
The addition of four hundred and 9Xty (460) prospective owners' with voting interests
lou ld materially ald adverre!y alter the proportionate voting interest of the current owners.
Given that all record percel ownersand all record owners oflien did not join in the execution
f the amendment. §720.306(1 Xc~ Rorida Satutes, may have been violated .
SJuth County Coalition has authorized us to ajvire you of their position with respect
') th~ amendments. SJuth County Coalition is maki ng demand that these amendments be
3S::inded and that the Asrociation tal<e appropriate oction to preclude the r€SdentiaJ
development in question.
We look forward to being advired of your position.
Very truly yours,

St\CHSSA.X KL8N
~encer M. Sax .
MSJemw
c.c: SJuth County Coalition

Mizner Trail Golf Club c/o Alilip E 81i$
{d.
BOCA DEL MAR 601IIS.W.18Slr~("(, n..... lhl"n, FlllridllJ34JJ I'h"nt': S(.. ·~.8-JSOJ .... 1:
561-368-3058
IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC
December 9, 2010
Richard Siemens
Siemens Group
5801 Congress A venue
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Mr, Siemens:
The Board of Directors of this Association sponsored a meeting on September 29,

2010 to give our residents an opportunjty to learn about your proposed development plans
for the Mizner Trail Golf Course property, and the County process to facilitate such a
proposal.
We asked all of our Sub-Communities to digest and discuss this infonnation and
to provide us with their feedback in order to help our Board detennine if we should take a
position on this matter and if so what position.
Pursuant to input recei ved from our residents the Board of Directors of this
Association passed a motion on December 8, 20 10 indicating that we will not support the
currently proposed devclopment ordcr amendment concerning the Mizncr Trail Golf
Course property,
Sincerely,
Paul McDennott, President
Boca Del Mar Tmprovement Association, Tnc.
PM/lr
From: bocaarbonngr@lincolnapts.com [mailto:bocaarborrngr@lincolnapts.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 20103:29 PM
To: Lawrence Margolin
Subject: RE: FW: NOTICE: Stop Mizner Trail Dev./ BDMIA Critical Meeting Wed.
This letter is to confTim that Boca Arbor Club is against any construction on Mizner Golf Course.
Sincerely,
Cindy Clark
Business Manager
ILl
from; reftectionsboca@comcast.net [mailto: refl'ectionsboca@comcast.net ]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 12:43 PM
To: lawrence Margolin
Subject: Re: Mizner Trail Golf Course
Larry,
As the property manager of Reflections of Boca Del Mar, I represent 320 families and would like for
their concerns be known in regards to the proposed development of the Mizner Trail Golf Course
property. We are concerned that the increased traffic will not only be a nuisance, but will cause
pollution and increased accidents. Additionally, the residents quality ofliving wil'l be infringed upon,
they live here to enjoy the peace and tranquility of an open green space.
We are in total support of keeping it a maintained green space or as a golf course as it was intended.
Please keep us advised on what further action we can take.
Sincerely,
Gennine Howard
Property Manager
Reflections of Boca Del Mar
561-750-0881
./
J ~
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the membership of our Association ("Association") opposes any application
or revisions to any portion of the Boca Del Mar Master Plan proposed by any owner or
prospective future purchaser of the property know as Mizner Trail Golf Club and any
Development Order Amehdment Application to convert any portion of the South Golf Course of
Boca Del Mar (the "Golf Course") to multi-family attached or single family residential units (the
th
"Proposed Project") at the northwest intersection of 18 Street and Military Trail (the
"Intersection");
. WHEREAS, the Proposed Project was originally submitted for Palm Beach
County Development Review Officer Comments ("ORO',) on March 3, 2004 and resubmitted on
March 2 9, 2005 and again on April 26, 2005 and rejected by the Palm Beach County Zoning
Board on two occasions and unanimously rejected by the Palm Beach County Board of County
Commissioners;
WHEREAS, DRO Certification Issues included but were oot limited to:
(i) The Project's lack ofCompJiance of the Proposed Project with current open space
requirements of the Pahn Beach County Unified Land Development Code (the "ULDC")
pertaining to aU of Boca Del Mac; and .
(ii) A discrepancy in the Proposed Project which ignores that there are no
unused/available units that can be developed in Boca Del Mar;
(iii) Lack ofcompliance 'with development standards;
WHEREAS, the Proposed Project estimates no less than an additional 3,900 external
daily traffic trips will be introduced to the adjacent public roadways, adding to existing vehicular
congestion, and requiring additional construction in and around the Intersection, re-routing of
traffic onto SW 18 th Street, and disruption of traffic patterns caused by excessive vehicular traffic
entering onto Military Trail which will lead to dangerous traffic patterns at the SW 18th
Jb
StreetIMilitary Trail intersection, greater traffic congestion on all feeder local streets, and even
further delays on all of the local streets which are already at or above capacity; ,
WHEREAS, there exist recorded covenants running wi th the land of Boca Del Mar which
restrict and dedicate the Golf Course to its current recreational "open space" use in perpetuity
and any change thereto has not been submitted to a vote of the Boca Del Mar residents; and
WHEREAS, two residential pods located within Boca Del Mar were allowed to satisfY
their recreation space requirements by counting the Golf Course as open/recreation spocc;
WHEREAS, the Palm Beach County Zoning Commission ("PBCZC") staff rejected the
initial development proposal for the Pro.posed Project as planned on October I, 2005, and the
PBCZC fonnally rejected the application on February 2, 2006;
WHEREAS, the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners ("PBCBCC")
voted to deny the development application for the Proposed Project on February 23, 2006;
WHEREAS, the initial developer of the Proposed Project as plaintiff filed a taw suit
against the PBCBCC in 2008 alleging, among other things, that the PBCBCC had denied, him
full use of his Jand use and development rights and that the county's development standards were
arbitrary, subsequent to which a judgn:tent was issued in favor of the defense denying aU such
claims, and such judgment was subsequently appealed by the plaintiff and upheld by the Circuit
Court of Appeals.
NOW, TI-lEREFORE, be it resolved liS follows:
1. The Association opposes the Proposed Project;
2, The Proposed Project is too intense for the Intersection;
The fO. repoing Resolution appears in the minutes of the Association of the community of L, ~
rr;;r:tfxUiJ,.-
10.
W~ doli comprising ~1 homes as of this Jl day of'!Y.f1M /J.N2--
Dy' QRIWM,U15h
S retary ~
17
Print • ~b~ • ~ ••
From: Lawrence Margolin (lmargolin@newbridgesecurities.com)
To: flnixons@yahoo.com; landmarkrn@hotmail.com;
Date: Mon, December 20, 2010 9:15:39 AM
Cc:
Subject: FW: Opposing the build
From: Shanon Pereira [mailto:SPereira@apmanagement.net]

Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 4:40 PM
To: Lawrence Margolin
SUbject: Opposing the build
Larry,
The Palms of Boca Del Mar is against building on the golf course and would like to see it remain a golf
course or green space.
Sincerely,
SHANON PEREIRA
Property Manager
THE PALMS OF BOCA DEL MAR Video Tour

5515 Pacific Blvd I Boca Raton, FL 33433
Office: (561) 392.1244 I Fax: (561) 392.5179
E·Mail I V-Card I WebSite
ATLANTIC
~...PACIFIC
MAHAG[MENT
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION: Warning, this electronic message (and attachments) contains

confidential infonnation and is intended only for the specified recipient. If you are not the named
addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
immediately bye-mail if you have received this e-mail message by mistake and delete this e-mail
notification from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secured or error-free as
infonnation could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, delayed or incomplete, or contain viruses.
The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message,
which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. Ifverification is required please request a hard-copy
version. Atlantic & Pacific Management I www.apmanagement.net
http://us.mgl.mail.yahoo.comldc/launch?.gx= I &.rand=8konicuu5sai8 12/20/2010

RESOLUTION
or revisions to any portion of the Boca Del Mar Master Plan proposed by any owner or.
Development Order Amendment Application to convert any portion of the Sooth Golf Course of
Boca Del Mar (the ''Golf Course") to multi-family attached or single family residential units (the
"Proposed Project") at the northwest intersection of ) 811! Street and Military Trail (the
"Intersection");
WHEREAS, the Proposed Project was originally submitted for Palm Beach
County Development Review Officer Comments ("DRO") on March 3, 2004 and resubmitted on
March 29, 2005 and again on April 26, 2005 and rejected by the Palm Beach County Zoning
BOard on two occasions and unanimously rejected by the Palm Beach County Board of County
Commissioners;
WHEREAS, DRO Certification Issues included but were not Iimite<l to:
(i) The Project's lack of Compliance of the Proposed Project with current open space
requirements of the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code (the "ULDC'l
pertaining to all ofBoca De) Mar; and
(li) A discrepancy in the Proposed Project which ignores that there are no
(iii) Lack ofcompliance with development standards;
daily traffic trips wilJ be introduced to the adjacent public roadways, adding to existing vehicular
traffic onto SW 18111 Street, and disruption oftraffic patterns caused by excessive vehicular traffic
entering onto Military Trail which will lead to dangerous traffic patterns at the SW 18111
'.' . ~ '''"
StreetIMiIitary Trail intersection, greater traffic congestion on all feeder .local streets, and even
further delays on all of the local streets which are already at or above capacity;
WHEREAS, there exist recorded CQvenantsmnning with the land of Boca Del Mar which.
WlffiREAS, two residential pods located within Boca Del Mar were allowed to satisfy
their recreation space requirements by counting the Golf Course as open/recreation space;
. WHEREAS, the Palm Beach County Zoning Commission ("PBCZC") staff rejected the
. initial development proposal for the Proposed Projcct as planned on October I, 2005, and the
PBCZC fonnally rejected the application on February 2, 2006;
WHEREAS, the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners ("PBCDCC")
voted to deny the development application for the Proposed Project on February 23; 2006;
WHEREAS, the initial developer of the Proposed Project as plaintiff filed a law suit
against ,t he PBCBCC in 2008 alleging, among other things, that the PBCBCC had denied him
full use of his land use and development rights and that the county's development standards were
arbitrary, subsequent to which a judg~ent was issued in favor of the defense denying all such
Court of Appeals.
NOW, TIIEREFORE, be it resolved as follows:
I. The Association opposes the Proposed Project;
2. The Proposed Project is too intense for the Intersection;

RESOLUTION
prospective future purchaser of the property know as Mizner Trnil Golf Club and any
Development Order Amendment Application to convert any portion of the South Golf Course of
"Proposed Projecf') at the northwest intersection of 18th Street and Military Trail (the
"Intersection");
County Development Review Officer Comments ("DRO") on March 3, 2004 and resubmitted on
Commissioners;
WHEREAS, DRO Certification Issues included but were not limited to:
requirements of the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code (the "ULDC")
pertaining to all of Boca Del Mar; and
(iii) Lack of compliance with development standards;
daily traffic trips wilf be introduced to the adjacent public roadways, adding to existing vehicular
traffic onto SW 18th Street, and disruption of traffic patterns caused by excessive vehicular traffic
entering onto Military Trail which will lead to dangerous traffic patterns at the SW 18th
Street/Military Trail intersection, greater traffic congestion on all feeder local streets, and even
WHEREAS, there exist recorded covenants running with the land of Boca Del Mar which
WHEREAS, two residential pods located within Boca Del Mar were allowed to satisfy
their recreation space requirements by counting thc Golf Course as open/recreation space;
initial development proposal for the Proposed Project as planned on October I, 2005, and the
PBCZC formally rejected the application on february 2,2006;
against the PBCBCC in 2008 alleging, among other things, that the PBCBCC had denied him
arbitrary, subsequent to which a judgment was issued in favor of the defense denying all such
Court of Appeals.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved as follows:
. The foregoing Resolution appears in the minutes of the Association of the community of '\
I*A
Bu~v\>:iT;I'r
2010.
biY\ TN~ L/ LoISiEJ)5
H :
QA/
comprising 1a::::::::> homes as of this ~ day of ~, IJLT'~
'{
~L
11
y ~- --e~retary D!?.)..\\..·:-j i2. ",:::e.i\ <r--q~

Print Page 2 or2
<nlssel rk}aandnmgml.:.COll1>; lashac0}aanJllmgml .com
Sent: Tue. No vemher 30. 2010 2:25 :09 PM
Subject: Opposition to Mizner Trail OevelopmcnliForward to all Zoning
Commissioners Re :Mizner Trail 20 I 0-1728
On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Iron wedge Property Owners Association
I am sending you written confirmation of a MOTION/RESOLUTION unanimously
approved at our I 1117/2010 Board Meeting ...
"On behalf of our 127 homowners the lronwedge Property Owners Association Board
of Directors opposes the change in zoning and development of the Mizner Trail
Golf Course."
In a separate action the Ironwedge Board of Directors unanimously approved a

MOTION to make a $500.00 donation to S.C.A.M.D. (Second Coalition Against Mizner
Development) to help fund their opposition initiatives ... a check wiH be

forwarded to the SCAMD organiztion under separate cover.
Drew A. Dutton
Secretary, Board of Directors lronwedge POA Association
Other Board Members:

Louis Frangos, President
Andrew Rose, Vice-President
Than Watkin, Treasurer
Nicholas Solimine, Director-at-Large
http ://us.mgJ .mail .yahoo.com/dc/launch ?.gx= I &.rand=345gep 1sbopf8 12/8/2010

PETITION AGAINST DEVELOPMENT
OF MIZNER TRAIL GOLF COURSSE
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RES1DENTS OF THE GREENS IN BOCA DEL MAR IN

BOCA RATON, FL hereby state that we do not want Mizner Trail Golf Course developed for
housing purposes by Seimens Group or any other developer. Should this land be developed it
will increase traffic, carbon monoxide and noise, over-crowd our roads, schools and hospitals
and diminish the quality of our lifestyles. It is our desire that the Mizner Trail Golf Course stay
a golf course or open green space. We are against a zoning change to allow development.
Homeowner: Addr~ss: Email:
~,51!§lcu/, OJ/7)
/42-115'l €lJ C(O /. COft/
.,
:'~E>Ucdd Vl fr (/..fLi<-cI @UJrII ( tIJ I( 11 cd
~~% . ~mu<--
~~~ C1trv1~ ,,2 d.. C] S ~ ~~c (' ('1\ Vl ' c"'-' f'ulZ SAL IVL. fr"u'Z- ; .~ ') c:...i.J l . ( ) ... ,
~ 9'i~/ 7'//?1't«CM> Z:;;, ~ e L,<L!~~

:2
d ~~~l ~(,Q.\d\\)IQV Ie A( _ _ _ _ _ __
J ~ittrl @ ClJ~ 4M/:. 'Jec

o~+f(»t'\J..cA @~I. e2hA..
THE GREENS - PETITION AGAINST DEVELOPMENT OF MlZNER TRAlL GOLF COURSE
~effi1 J.Cba rlp) Dui)1"7 ddSd- U G(e U'JI ~vJ -F-uv ~ \:wy1r@&rrrW!QJV\
1xt $cS&fI1WYkL ifl{JC ,riaCJLhrfl (fIji 8;JilJfhliW) ~mfe S-fe(h1lHe.motl{)cA)/ad2ho~~
Sj-ARJ?,,~t0S>~k~' 22q~o6pYh}''0{&v 1tee Stpree '1s2- f\ol(~u>' ",
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE GREENS IN BOCA DEL MAR IN

BOCA RATON, FL hereby state that we do not want Mizner Trail Golf Course developed for
housing purposes by Seimens Group or any other developer. Should this land be developed it
will increase traffic, carbon monoxide and noise, over-crowd our roads, schools and hospitals
and diminish the quality of our lifestyles. It is our desire that the Mizner Trail Golf Course stay
a golf course or open green space. We are against a zoning change to allow development.
Email:
deb) Y01 (iJc tJ mea sf net

t: thr~!~~
fh I tu !h e /cz 7,1) £L@2.N..r~ !rt~ C!)I

.
RESOLUTION
WIIEREAS, the membcrship of our Association ("Association") opposes any application
Boca Del Mar (the "GolfCoursc") to multi-family attached or single family residential units (the
th
"I ntersect ion");
WHEREAS, thc Proposed Project was originally submitted for Palm Beach
County Developmcnt Review Officer Commcnts ("ORO") on March 3, 2004 and resubmitted on
Board on two occasions and un~wimously rejected by the Palm Beach County Board of County
Commissioners;
WHEREAS, ORO Certification Issues included but were not limited to:
(,i) The Project's lack of Compliance of the Proposed Project with current open space
(iii) Lack ofcompliance with development standards;
WHEREAS, thc Proposed Project estimates no less than an additional 3,900 external
daily tratTic trips will be introduccd to the adjaccnt public roadways, adding to existing vehicular
traffic onto S W I Sill Street, and disruption of traffic patterns caused by excessive vchicular traffic
entering onto Military Trail which will lead to dangerous traffic patterns at the SW 18 th
Stn:eUMilitnry Trail intersection, greater traf1ic congestion on all feeLler local streets, and even
further delays on all o/" the local streets which are already at or above capacity;
WHER EAS, there exist recorded covenants running ...vith the land of Boca Del Mar whieh
restrict and unliealc the Gol r Courst: to its current rt:crt:ational "upen space" usc in pt:rpetuity
WH ER EAS, two residential pods lot:ated within Boca Del Mar were allowed to satisfy
their recreati o n space requirements by counting the Golf Course as openirecreation space;
WII CRLAS , the Palm Beach County Zoning COlllmiss ion ("PBCZC") staff rejected the
initial devel o pmcnt proposal for the Proposed Project as planned on October I, 2005, and the
PBCZC formally rejected the application on February 2, 2006;
WH E REAS , the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners ("PBCBCC")
\VIILREAS, the initial develuper of the Proposeu Project as plaintiff filed a law suit
against the [",B C BCC in 2008 alleging, among other things, that the PBCBCC had denied him
/"ullu se orhi s tanu usc anu dcvclopmellt rights and that the county's development standards were
a rbitrary, subsequcnt to which a judgment was issued in favor of the defense denying all such
claims, LIml such judgmcnt was subsequt:ntly appealed by the plaintiffand upheld by the Circuit
Court of Appt:als.
NOW , THEREFORE, be it resolved as follows :
I. T he A ssociation upposes the Proposed Project;
2. The Pro posed Project is too intense for the Intersection;
The fo regoing Rcsoluti oJl appears in the minutes o f the Association of the community
_,_ _ The Greens COIllPrl !j lng 47 homes as of this 1.'1
day o/" So..nl
fr,
2010 . ---cr
n.
RESOLUTIONMTGC2010%5B1%5D[1]
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the membershi p of ou r Associ ati on C" Associ ati:on") opposes any
application .
or revisions to any portlon of the Boca Del Mar Master plan proposed
by any owner or
prospective future purchaser of the property know as Mizner Trai l Golf
c l ub and any
Development order Amendment Application to convert any portion of the
south Golf Course of
Boca Del Mar Cthe "Golf Course") to multi-family attached or single
family residential units Cthe
"proposed project") at the northwest intersection of 18th Street and
Mi,litary Trail Cthe
"Inte ,r secti on") ;
WHEREAS, the proposed Project was originally submitted for palm Beach
County Development Review officer Comments C"DRO") on March 3, 2004
and resubmitted on
March 29, 2005 and again on Apri l 26, 2005 and rejected by the palm
Beach County zoning
Board on two occaSlons and unanimously rejected by the palm Beach
County Board of County
Commissioners;
Ci) The project's lack of compliance of the proposed project with
current open space
requirements of the Palm Beach county Unified Land Development Code
(the "ULDC")
(i i)
A di sc r epancy in the proposed project which ignores that there are no
unused/available units that can be developed 1n Boca Del Mar;
(i i i)
Lack of compliance with development standards;
WHEREAS, the proposed project estimates no less than an additional
3,900 external
daily traffic tr i ps will be introduced to the adjacent public
roadways, adding to existing vehicular
congestion, and requiring additional construction in and around the
Int~rsection, re-routing of
traffic onto SW 18th Street, and disruption of traffic patterns caused
by excessive vehicular traffic

entering onto Mi l itary Trail which wil l lead to dangerous traffic
patterns at the SW 18th
o
Street/Military Trail intersection, greater traffic congestion on all
feeder local streets, and even
Page 1
RESOLUTIONMi GC2010%5B1%5D[1]
further delays on all of the local streets which are already at or
above capacity;
WHEREAS, there exist recorded covenants running with the land of Boca
Del Mar which
restrict and dedicate the Golf Course to its current recreational
"open space" use in perpetuity
and any change thereto has not been submitted to a vote of the Boca
Del Mar residents; and
WHEREAS, two residential pods located within Boca Del Mar were allowed
to satisfy
their recreation space requirements by counting the Golf Course as
open/recreation space;
WHEREAS, the palm Beach County Zoning commission ("PBCZC") staff
~eje~ted the .
lnltlal development proposal for the proposed project as pl"anned on
october 1, 2005, and the
WHEREAS, the palm Beach County Board of county commissioners
("PBCBCC")
voted to deny the development application for the proposed project on
February 23, 2006;
WHEREAS, the initial developer of the Proposed project as plaintiff
filed a law suit
against the PBCBCC in 2008 alleging, among other things, that the
PBCBCC had denied him
full use of his land use and development rights and that the county's
development standards were
arbitrary, subsequent to which a judgment was issued in favor of the
defense denying a l l such
claims, and such judgment was subsequently appealed by the plaintiff
and upheld by the Circuit
Court of Appeals.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resol'ved as follows:
1. The Association opposes the proposed project;
2. The Proposed project is too intense for the Intersection;
The foregoing Resolution appears in the minutes of the Association of
the community of
___ wind Drift comprising __ 52 homes as of this _20__ day of
_ sept. ,
2010.
By: ~llan S. Greenberg___
Pres. WDHOA
Page 2
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the mcmbership or our Association ("Association") opposes any application
Development Order Amenument Application to convert any portion of the South Golf Course of
th
"Proposed ProjecC') at the northwest intersection of 18 Street and Military Trail (the
"Intersection ");
County Development Review OfTicer Comments (" ORO") on March 3, 2004 and resubmitted on
March 29, 2005 and again on April 26, 2005 and rcjected by the Palm Beach County Zoning
Commissioners;
WIIERLAS, DRO Certification Issues included but were 110t limited to:
requirements of the Palm Deach County Unified Land Development Code (the "ULDC")
WHEREAS, the Proposed Project cstimates no less than an additional 3,900 external
th
tranic onto SW 18 Street, and disruption of traffic patterns caused by excessive vehicular traffic
cntering onlo Military Trail which will lcad to dangerous traffic patterns at the SW 18 cil
Strcl:t/ Mi Ii ta ry Trai I intnsl:clion, grl:atl:r traffic congestion on all feeder local strccts, and even
further delays on all oCtile loca l streets which are already at or above capacity;
WHEREAS , there l:xist recorded covenants running with the land of Boca Del Mar which
restrict and ded icate the Gol f Course to its current recreational "open space" use in perpetuity
and allY change thereto has not been submitted to a vote of the Boca Del Mar residents; and
their rccrl:ati on spacl: requirement s by counting thl: Golf Course as openlrccreation spal:e;
. WIILR EAS, tilc Palm lkach County Luning C01llmiss ion ("PL3ClC") staff rejected the
initial dcvdoprnent proposal [or the Proposed Proj ect as planned on Octobcr I, 2005, and- the
PBCZC formally rejected the applil:atioll on February 2, 2006;
\VI IERI ~ AS, till: Palm Beach County Boa rd of County Commissioners ("PBCBCC")
votcd to dCII)' the development application for the Proposed Project 011 february 23, 2006;
W1ILREAS, til e initial developer of the Proposed Project as plaintiff filed a law suit
against till: PIJUJCC ill 2008 al leging, among other things, that the PBCL3CC had deni ed him
full use of hi s la nd use and development rights and that the county 's development standards were
arbitrary, subsequent to which a judgmcnt was iss ued in favor of the defense denying all such
claims, and slich judgment was subsequently appealed by the plaintiff and upheld by the Circuit
COllrt of Appeals .
NUW, TH.I:JZEJ-'URL, be it resolved as foll ows:
2. The Propost.:d Project is too intense for the intersection;
The rorl:going Resolulion appt.:ars in tile lIlinutes or the Assoc iation of the community or
e
.-
2010.
Golf Vista . _ COl11prtSlI1g 25
BY:~~
hlll11es as or tillS L day 0 \ ~j;:
SecretarY/homeo.;.;fer()
-- ~
c,. '" If \j r~1 ,,_ 000y

StreetJM i Iit~ry Trai I intersection, greater tramc congestion on al I feeder local strects, and even
further delays on all of the local streets which nre already at or above capacity;
WHEREAS, there exist recorded covenants running with the land of Boca Dcl Mar which
and <lny ehnnge thereto has not been submitted to a vote of the Boca Del Mar residents; and
initial development proposal for the Proposed Project as planIled on October I, 2005, and the
PBCZC formally rejected the application on February 2,2006;
WHERI ~ AS, the Palm Beach County 130ard of County Commissioners ("PBCBCC")
voted to dcny the development applicatiun f~lI' the Proposed Project on February 23, 2006;
WIIEREAS, the initial developer of the Proposed Project as plaintiff filed a law suit
against the PBCBCC in 2008 alleging, among other things, tbat the PBCBCC had denied him
full use of hi s land use and development rights and that the county's development standards were
arhitrary, subsequ e nt to which a judgment \Vas issued in favor of the defense denying all such
claims, and such judgment WtlS subsequently a,ppealcd by thc plaintiff and upheld by the Circuit
Court of Appeals.
I. The Associati on oproscs the Proposed Pro,iect;
2. The Propost:d Project is too intense for the Intersection;
The foregoing !\esolutioI1 appears in ~he minutes ur the Association or the c()mm,uuit~ .
Golf Vista compnsmg 25 homes as of this ~ day or .~J,-
2010. ~ .
By: ~ ho. d)o-~

Secretary/homeowner
C( ~~ G, D \ P \11,1 <::>~ (j~i

further delays on all of the local streets wh ich arc already at or above capacity;
and any change thcrelo has not bcen submitted to (I votc of the Hoca Dc! Mar residents; and
WIIfJ~.I-:!\S. two rcsidcntia 'i pods locakd withil1 Buca [)cl Mar were allow(;d to satisfy
their recreation space requirements by counting the Golf Course as openlrecreation space;
Wt-lliREAS, the Palm I3cach County Zuning Commission ("PI3CZC") staff rejected the
PBCZC formally rejected the appl ication on February 2, 2006;
voted to deny the development application for the Proposed Project 011 february 23, 2006;
WI IERCAS, the initial developer of the Proposed Project as plaintiff filed a law suit
full use of his land usc and development rights and that the county's development standards were
claims, and such judgmcnt was subscljuently appealed by the plaintiff and upheld by the Circuit
Court of Appeals.
NOW, TI-JER.EFORE, be it resolved as {ollows:
The tl)[(.:goiIlg Rcsulutiof'\ appears iII the lIlinutes ur the t\ssocialiull or the cOllllllunity \:"
____G_o_lf_ V
_ ista comprising 25 homes as of this !£ day of J:;f5
20 IO.
By: 4r-.~c9~
Sccret~~
{ I ~( Golp t~o~ CuQi

StreeUMilitary Trail intersection, greater trame congestion on all feeder local streets, and even
further delays on all of the local streets which are already at or above capacity ;
and any change thereto has not been submitted to a vute of the Boca Del Mar residents; and
their recreation space requirements by coullting the Golf Course as openlrecreation space;
WllLRE AS, the Palm Beach Counly loning Commission ("PBClC") staff rejeeted the
initial development proposal for the Proposed Projeet as planned on October I, 2005, and the
PBCZC Connally rejected the application on February 2, 2006;
voted to dellY the development application for the Proposed Project on February 23, 2006;
agoillst the [,BCB T in 2008 alleging, among other things, that the PBCBCC had denied him
full usc of hi s land usc and devel o pment rights and that the county's development standards were
arbitrary, subsequent 10 whieh a judgment "vas issued in favor of the defense denying all slleh
Court of Appeals ,
NOW , THE REfORE, be it resolved as follows :
I, The Association opposes the Proposed Project;
2, The Proposcd Project is too intense for the Intersection;
The f'uregoing Resolution appears in the minutes or the Association or the' nunItYf
Golf Vista cOl1lrrising 25 homcs as of ti _' _ clay of dJ.
~ :>~
2010,
II y: _ _
~-\~_--\--\.I-----\_ _ __
Secret y/ho
6itJ3 {10LF--\j---.l..-/~··Th luiJJ!
~t( ~ R~S}~ n6.
further delays on all of the local strects which arc already at or above capacity;
WI IFREAS , two resi dcntial pods located within Boca Del Mar wen~ allowed to satisfy
their recreation space requirements by cOllnting the Golf Course as open/recreation space;
WHEREAS, the Palm 8each County Zoning Commission ("PBCZC") staff rejected the
WIIER EAS, the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners ("PBCBCC")
WH EREAS, the initial Jeveloper of the Proposed Project as plaintiff Ii led a law suit
against the PU CBCC in 2008 alleging, among other things, that the PBC8CC had denied him
fu II use of his land use and development rights and that the county 's development standards were
Court of Appeals.
I. The Association of1poses the Proposed Project;
2. The Propused Project is too inten se for the Jntersection;
The furegoing Reso lutiun appeurs in the millutes of the AS50ci~tio.n of the co mmunity QL.
_. Golf Vista comrmsmg 25 homes as 0 thIS JCS day of' 'SePI"
2010. vr;
)~ L- -' / . /~=-------
n~cretary ho
StreeUMi Iitary Trail intersection, greater traffic congestion on all feeder local streets, and even
restrict and dedicate the Golf Course to its current recreational "open space" use in perpcluity
WHEREAS, the Palm Beach County Zoning Commission ("PBCZC") stafr rejected the
initial developIlll;l\t proposal ('or the Proposed Project as planned on October I, 2005, and the
PBClC formally rejected the application on February 2,2006;
WIIEREAS, the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners ("PBCBCC")
voted to deny thc developmcnt application for the Proposed Project on February 23, 2006;
Cull usc of his land usc and development rights and that the county ' s development standards were
claims, and such judgment was subsequently appealed by the plaintifr and upheld by the Circuit
Court of Appeals.
NOW, TIIFREFORE, be it resolved as lollows:
I. Tht' Association opposes the Proposed Project;
2. Tile Prorosed Projed is too intense for the Intersection;
The roregoing Reso lution appears in ~h(; minutes of the Associatio.n of the community cL
25 homes as of thI S 6f-
da{' of S n.ill,
2010.
Golf Vista compflSrng
. i ' (I ~~
By: -1-~'--"+l"ry:"~'-h'\:-o'm'7 £'~-'<o6.~Ln

_ _.~ _
I
37
37
StrcetlMi litary Trai 1 intersection, greater traffic congestion on all feeder local streets, and even
further delays on all of the local streets which are already at or above capacit-y;
and allY change thereto has !lot oeL)11 submitted to a vote of the Boca Dcl Mar residents; and
WI LEREAS, (wo residelltial pods located within Boca Del Mar were allowed to satisfy
WIIERLAS, the Palm Beach COllllty Zoning Commission ("PBCZC") staff rejected the
initial development proposal for thc Proposed Project as planned on October I, 2005, and the
PBClC formally rejected the application on February 2,2006;
WHEREAS, the initial developer of the Proposed Project as plaintifT filed a law suit
against the PBCBC:C: in 2008 alleging, among other things, that the PBCI3CC had dcnied him
full usc of his land use and development rights and that the county's development standards were
claims, ami such judgmcnt was subsequently appealed by the plaintiff and upheld by the Circuit
Court of Appeals.
NOW, TI-IEREI:OIUi, be it resolved as follows:
I. The Association opposcs the Proposed Project;
2. The Prorosed Project is too intense for the fntersection;

Street/Military Trail intersection, greater tranic congestion on all fceder loeal streets, and even
further delays on all of tile local streets which arc already at or above capacity ;
WHE REAS , there exist recorded covenants running with the land of Boca Del Mar which
restric.t and dedicate the Goll' Coursc to its currcnt recreational "open space" usc in perpetuity
and allY change thereto has not been s ubmitted to a vo te of the Boea Del Mar residents ; and
WII£ REAS, t,vo residential pods located within Boca Del Mar were allowed to satisfy
WHEREAS, the Palm l3each Coullty Zoning Commission ("PBCZC") staff rejected the
initial dcvelopment proposal for the Proposed Project as planned on October I, 2005, and the
PBcze formally rejected the application on february 2, 2006;
W1 JEREAS, the Palm Beaeh County Board of County Commissioners ("PBCBCC")
voted to deny the development application for the Proposed Project on February 23,2006;
WIICREAS, the initial developer of the Proposed Project as plaintiff filed a law suit
against the PU C l3CC in 200~ alleging, alllong other things, that the PBCBCC had denied him
arbitrary , subsequent to which a judgment was issued in favor of the defen se denying all such
Court of Appeals.
NUW, TI-IFREFORE, be it resolved as follows:
I. Tile Association opposes the Proposed Project;
2. The Proposed Project is too intense fo r the Intersection;
The '0 ,ego'"g Re,,,' ut' u" "I'pw, 'U 'he m'" "[<" 0 r the Assoc' "'on 0 r 'he eom~£r
20'0. Golf V,," com 1'''' "'g B1J'j~ll:·

Seocc'aryfhom.ow"" \.
Street/Military Trail intersection, greater trafrie congestion on all feeder local streets, and even
WHEREAS, there exist recorded covenants running with the land of Boca Del Mar whieh
restrict and dedicatc the Golf Course to its current recreational "open space" use in pcrpetuity
WILEREAS, two residential pods located within Boca Del Mar were allowed to satisfy
their recreation space requirements by counting the Golf Course as openirecreation space;
WJ ILREAS, the ralm Beach County Zoning Commission ("PBCZC") staff rejecled the
initial development proposal Ii)!" the Proposed Project as planned on October 1,2005, and the
vOled to deny the development application for the Proposed Project on February 23, 2006;
WHEREAS, the initial developer or the Proposed Project as plaintiff filed a law suit
against the J'BCIJCC in 2008 alleging, among other things, that the PBCBCC had denied him
full use of his land use and development rights and thaI the county's development standards were
claims, and su~h judgment was subsequently appealed by the plaintiff and upheld by the Circuit
Court or Appeals.
NOW, TI-IEREFORE, be it resolved as follows:
I. The Association opposes the l'ruposed Project;
2. Thc Proposed Project is too intensc for thc Intersection;
The foregoillg Resolution appears in the millutes of the Association of the eoml11unity of
Golf Vista ._ comprising _ 2~ homes a of this L2 day of :S'€~eT '7
2010.
By: ...
a retL .
7y
~
~~
.v//~~
-
.
. Seer ary/homeowner
(\53 C;u\fVi"'+U~Wc(
II . /')
Lf' c'
StrceUM i Iitary Trail i ntcrscction, greater trafTic congestion on all fceder local streets, and even
restrict and deoicate the Gole Coursc to its current recreational "open srace" use in perpetuity
and any change thereto has not been submitted to a vote of the Boca Del Mar res idents; and
WHE R F:: AS, two resid e ntial pods located within Boca Del Mar were all o wed to sati s fy
their recreation s pace requirclllents by counting {he Golf Course as openlrecreation space;
WH ER EAS, thc Palm Beach County Zoning Co mmission ("PBeZC") s taff rejected the
initial dcvclorment proposal for the Proposed Project as plmmed on Oetobcr I, 2005, and the
PB CZC fo rmally rejected the aprlication on February 2, 2006;
WHERE AS, the l'all11 Bcach Co unty Board o f County Commissioners (" PBCBCC")
voted to deny thc development nppli catioll lor the Proposcd Project on February 23 , 2006 ;
WH EREAS, the initial developer of the Proposed Project as plaintiff filed a law suit
against the PO C BCC in 2008 alleging, among other things, that the PBC13CC had denied him
full usc of his land usc and development rights and that the county's devel o pment standards were
arbitrary, su bsequent to which a judgme nt wa s issued in favor of the defense denying all such
claims, and such judgment was sllb~l:4uently appealed by the plaintifTand upheld by the Circuit
Court of Appeals,
NOW, TH ERE FORE, be it resolved as follow~:
I, The Association opposes the Proposed Project;
2, T he Proposed Projec t is too intense for the Intersection;
' file IllleglJ in g I{esulutl(lll the Illillutl:s

appCdl":S III 01'the Assoc iatioll ur the cOllllllunlty oj j
Golf Vista compllslIlg 25 /(5 Jay o f <=~'"..I l<
homes as of this jjJ_ o·
2010 .
ByL l~L'AJ'
StreeUMilitary Trail intersection , greater tramc congestion on all feeder loca l s tTects, and even
further delays on all of the local streets which arc already at o r above capacity;
Wl-fEREAS, there ex is t recorded covenants running with the land of Boca Del Mar whi ch
restrict and ded ica te the G o lf Course to its current recreational "open space" use in perpetuity
WHE REAS, two residential pods 10c;J\ed within Boca Del Mar were allowed to sa tisfy
their recreation space requiremcnts by counting the Golf Course as open/ recreati o n space;
WHEREAS, the Palm Beach County Zoning Commiss ion ("PBCZC") staff rejected the
initial devclopm ent proposa l lor the Proposed Project as pl anned o n October I, 2005, and the
PBCZC formall y rejected the app licati o n on February 2,2006;
WHER EAS, thc Palm Beach County Board of County Commi ss ioners ("PBC BCC")
voted to deny the develo pment a ppli cati o n for the Proposed Project on February 23, 2006;
WHER EAS, the initial devel oper of the Proposed Project as plaintiff filed a law suit
against the l'13 CBCC in 2008 alleging, among other things, that the PBCBCC had denied him
full use of his land use and devel opment rights and that the county's deVelopment s tandard s were
arbitrary , s ubsequent to whieh a judgment was issued in favor of the defen se den y ing all such
claims, and such judgmcnt was s ubsequcnll y appealed by (he plaintiff and uphe ld by the C ircuit
Court o f Appeals.
NO W, THEREFOR E, be it reso lved as follows:
I. T he Assoc iation opposes the Pro poscd P roject;
2. The I)roposed Project is too intense fo r the Inte rsecti o n;
The I'urego ing Reso luti o n appears il: ~hc minU\L:s of the Associati on ofth e eomm:z;r--nit
I of"
_ Golf Vista comprISing 25 homes as of thi s L!l day of.

2010.
By: to/%~~J1~~-
Secretary/homeowner
G)CJ\ \ \\ I" 9'" '-' V~ c' y

/
StreeUMilitary Trail intersection, greater tTamc congestion on all feeder local streets, and even
further delays on all orthe local streets which are already at or above capacity;
WI fER EAS, there exist recorded covenants runn ing with the land of Boca Del Mar wh ich
and any change thereto has not been submitted to a vote of the Hoca Del Mar residents; and
WIIER EAS, two residential pods located within Boca Del Mar were allowed to satisfy
their recreaLion space requirements by counting the Golf Course as open/recreation space;
WHEREAS, the Palm Beach County loning Commission ("PBClC") starr rejected the
PBClC formally rejected the application on February 2, 2006;
against til' PBCI3 CC in 2008 alleging, among other things, that the PBCBCC had denied him
arbitrary, subsL:quent to which a judgment was issued ill favor of the defense denying all such
claims, and such judgmcnt was subsequently appealed by the plaintiff anci upheld by the Circuit
COUli or Appeals.
NOW, TlJ.EREFORE, be it resolved as follows:
2. The PropoSL:d Project is too intensc for the IntL:rsL:ction ;
The Il,reguing RL:solutillil appears in the lllinlltL:S llr the (\ssllciaLion o l' the communitv ul
Golf Vista comprising ~_. hOllies as of this ~ Jay of~,
2() I O.
BY:~!.J1~_ _
Secretary/homeowner
Street/ Military Trail intersection , greater traOic congestion on all feeder local streets, and even
and any change thereto has not been submittcd to a votc of the Boca Del Mar residents; and
W\-W[{FAS, two residential rod s locatcd within Boca Del Mar were allowed to sati~fy
WHEREAS, the Palm Beach County Zoning Commission ("PI3CZC") staff rejected the
initial development proposal l'or the Proposed Project as planned on October 1,2005; and the
PBCZC formally rejected the application 011 February 2, 2006;
WHEREAS, the Palm Beach County l30ard of County Commissioners ("PBCBCC")
voted to deny the development application for thc Proposeci Project on february 23, 2006;
against the PBCBCC in 2008 alleging, among other things, that the l'BCBCC had denied him
tid I llse of his land use and developmcnt rights and tliat the county ' s development standards were
arbitrary, subsequent to which a judgment \vas issued in favor of the defense denying all such
claims, and slich judgmellt was subscljuclltly appealed by the plaintiff and upheld by the Circuit
Court of Appeals .
1. The AssociatiOll opposes the Proposed Project;
2. The ProposL:d ProjL:ct is too inlel1~e for the Intersection;
The foregoing Resulution arpears ill the minutes of the Association of the community of
Golf Vista comprising 25 homes as of this \ ~ day of dote;
2010.
8y:
----~~~~~~'--------
Stnxt/ Military Trail intersection, greater traffic congestion on all feeder local s treets, and even
further delay s Oil all of the local strcets which arc already at or above capacity;
restrict and tkdic~ltc the Golf Co urse to its current recreati o nal "open space" use in perpetuity
and any change thereto has not been suhmittcd to a vote of the Boca Del Mar n;sident s; and
WH EREAS, two residential pod s located within Boca Dcl Mar were allowed to sati sfy
WH E R EA S, the Palm Beach County Zoning Commission ("PBCZC") staff rejected the
initial development proposal for the Proposed Project as planned on October [, 2005, and the
PBC lC formally rejected the application on February 2,2006;
WHEREAS, the Palm lleaeh County Board of County Commissioners ("PBCBCC")
voted to dcny the development application for the Proposed Project 0)1 February 23, 2006;
WIIEREAS, the initial developer of the Proposed Project as plaintiff filed a law s uit
against the PI3CI3CC in 2008 alleging, among other things, lhat the PBCI3CC had denied him
arbitrary, subsequent to which a judgmcnt was issued in favor or the defense denying all such
claims, alld s uch judgmcnt was s ubsequently appealed by the plaintiff and upheld by the Circuit
Court or Appea ls.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it reso lved as follows:
2. Thc Proposed Project is too inlense for the Intersection;
Tht' foregoing Re sol utiull appears in Ihe millutes or the 1\. ssocia.ti on o.f the cOlnll1ul1itY>1l"
Golf Vista CUl1lPrlSlllg 25 ilollles as 01 tillS L~_ day 01 !tf)}C!..
2U I O.
l3y: -/.L~
;//
. Secretarylhomeow er
~ ./ ./ _
G "' \~ '\J ;~c, WI
treet/Military Trail intersection, greater traffic congestion on all feeder local streets, and even
further delays on all of the local strcd . whi ch are already at or above capacity;
and any change thereto has not been submilled to a vote of the Boca Del Mar residents; and
WHEREAS, t,vo re s idential pod s located within Goca Del Mar were allowed to satisfy
their recreatioll space requirement::; by counting the Golf Course as open/recreation space;
WHEREAS, the Palm Beach County Zoning Commission ("PBeZC") stafT rejected the
initial dcvelopmcnt proposal for thc Proposed Project as planned on October I, 2005, and the
PIJCZC forll1ally rejected the application on February 2, 2006;
WHLREAS, the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners ("PBCBCC")
voted to dcny the developmcllt appl ication for the Proposed Project 0[1 February 23 , 2006;
against the PBCBCC in 200S allcging, among other things, that the PBCBCC had denied him
fullUSl: o f hi s land usc and developmcnt rights and that the county's development standards were
arbitrary, subsequent to which a judgmcnt was iss lled in favor of the defense denying all such
claims, and such judgmcnt was subsequently appealed by the plaintiff and upheld by the Circuit
COllrt of Appeals.
NOW, TIIERU'-OR E, be it resolved as fo llows:
l. The Association opposes the Proposed Project;
2. The Pro posed Project is too intl:l1se for the Intersection;
Tile forcgoing Reso lutinl1 appears ill the milJutes of tbe As ciatio n or the community o f
2010.
Golf Vista co mpri s ing 25 hOIl S/ s of this
.
!!t-
d~ of -k---fT
StreeUMilitary T rail intersection, greater traffic congestion on all feeder local streets, and even
fu rther delays o n all oflhe loca l streets which arc already at or above capacity;
WH EREAS, there ex ist recorded covenants running with the land of Boca Del Mar which
restrict alld dedicate the Golf Co urse to its current recreational "open space" use in perpetuity
and any change thereto has not heen submitted to a vote of the Goea Del Mar residents; and
WI J EREAS, two res idential pods locakd within Boca Del Mar were allowed to satisfy
their recreation space requiremcnts by counting the Golf Course as open/recreation space;
WH ER EAS, the Palm Beach County Zoning Commission ("PBCZC") staff rejected the
initial devel opmcnt proposal for the Proposed Project as planned on October I, 2005, and the
PJ3CZC formally rejected the application on February 2,2006;
voted to dellY the development upplieation for the Proposed Project on February 23, 2006;
WH EREAS, the initial develo[Jer of the Proposed Project as plaintiff IIIed a law suit
against the PB C UC ' in 2008 alleging, among uther things, that the PBCBCC had denied him
arbitrary , subsequent to which a judgment was issued in favor of the defense denying all such
claims, and such judgmcnt was subsequently app(;alcd by the plaintilfand upheld by the Circuit
Court of Appeals.
The rure~()ing Resulut iOIl <lppcars in the III illutes of" the Association of the communitv of
_ _ _ _G_o_l_f Vista __ cOlllpnslIlg __ ~~ homes as of this 19 day o f" l..( P;,
20 I o.
By: ~ UL , /hJ1J
Seeretarv/homeowner
G e,\{, \J ;~C\ ~7 J
StrecLIMilitary Trail intersection, greater traffic congestion on all feeder local streets, and even
\VHEREAS, there exist recorded covenants running with the land of Boca Del Mar which
restrict and dedicate the Gal r Coursl: to its l:urrent n.:crcational "open space" use in perpetu ity
and ally change then:to has not been submitted to a vote of the Boea Del Mar residents ; and
WIIEREAS, two residential pods located within Boca Del Mar were allowed to satisfy
their rccreation spacc requirements by counting the Golf Course as open/recreation space;
WHLREAS, the Palm Beach County Zoning Commission ("PBCZC") staff rejected the
initiaI devdoplllcnt proposal for the Proposed Project as planned on October I, 2005, and the
PBeLC formally rejected the application on February 2, 2006;
WIIERI:AS, the Pajm Beach County Board of County Commissioners ("PBCBCC")
voted to dellY the development application for the Proposcd Projcct on February 23, 2006;
against the rBCBCC in 2008 alleging, among other things, that the PBCBCC had denied him
arbitrary , subsl:qucnt to whieh a judgment was issued in favor of the defense denying all such
claims, and s uch judgment was subsequenlly appealed by the plaintiff and upheld by the Circuit
Court of Appeals.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved as follows :
2. The Proposed Project is too intense for the rntersection;
The foregoing Resolution appears in the minutes of Ie · ssoeiat" 1I1 01· the cOl1ll11ur~itY
of
Golf Vista eomprrsrng _~ I () le· tI . ay oj r-.,
2010. ~ I
(c/~[ <--/ -~.~I_> ~ ·c) (L..-0--1

(
Street/ Military Trail intersection, greater trarlic congestion on all feeder local streets, and even
further delays 011 all oCtlle local strects which are already at or above capacity;
WHEREAS, two residelltial polls located within Boca Del Mar were allowed to satisfy
,initial development proposal lor the Proposed Project as planned on October I, 2005, and the
voted to deny the development application for thc Proposed Project on February 23, 2006;
full use of his land lise and development rights and that the county's development standards were
arbitrary, s ubsequent to which a judgment was issllcd in favor of the defense denying al I such
claims. and sueh judgment was subsequently appealed by the plaintiff and upheld by the eireu it
Court of Appeals.
2. The Proposed Project is lOO intense [or the Intersection;
The foregoing ~lesoillti()n appears in the minules of the Association or t~s coml~unity (~
Golf Vista compnsll1g 25 homes as of tillS R r Jay uf ~
2010.
Strcet/Military Trail intersectioll. grea ter trartic congestion on all feeder local streets, and even
further delays on all orthe local streets which arc already at or above capacity;
Wf-fEREAS, there ex is t recorded covenants running with the land of Boca Del Mar which
restrict and dedica te the Golf Course to its CLlrrent recreati onal "open space" use in perpetuity
rilld :Ill)' change thereto has !lot been submitted 10 a vote orlhc 110ca Del Mar residents; and
WHEREAS, two res idential pods located within Boca Del Mar were allowed 10 satisfy
their recreation space requirements by counting the Golt Course as open/recreation space;
WHEREAS, the Palm Beach COllllty /'onin g Commission ("PBC2C") staff rejected the
initial develo pment proposa l for the Proposed Project as planned on October I, 2005, and Ihe
PDCZC formally rejected the application on February 2, 2006;
WH E REAS, the Pa lm I3eaeh County Board of County Commissioners ("PBCBCC")
WH EREAS , the initial developer of the Proposed Project as plaintiff fil ed a law s uit
against the PDCBCC in 2008 alleging, among other things, that the PBCBCC had denied him
full use of his land use and development rights and that the county's development s tandards were
arbitrary, subsequent to which a judgment was issued in fa'.'Or of the defense denying a ll suc h
claims, and such judg men t was subsequently appealed by the plaintiff and uphe ld by Ihe C ircuit
Court of Appeals.
NO W, TH ER. EFORE, be il resolved as follows:
I. The Association o ppose:; the Proposed Project;
2. The Proposed Project is 100 intense for t}le ) nterseeti o n;
The foregoing Resolution appears in the minutes of' the Association of' lb.eJCOllll~l¥nit
Y )1 _
Golf Vista cOl1lprrsrng ~_ homes as of thI S (r l 7Iay 0 1 _ .

20 [0.
RESOLUTION
prospective future purchaser of the property know a<; Mizner Trail Golf Club and any
Boca Del Mar (the "Golf Course") to multi-family attached or single family resident,ial units (the
th
"Intersect ion") ;
WHEREAS, the Proposed Project was originaHy submitted for Palm Beach
County Development Review OfTicer Comments ("ORO") on March 3, 2004 and resubmitted on
Commissioners;
(i i) A discrepancy in the Proposed Project which ignores that there are no

unused/available units that can be deve'l oped in Boca Del Mar;
dai 'ly traflic trips will be introduced to the adjacent public roadways, adding to existing vehicular
trame onto SW 18 th Street, and disruption oftraflic patterns caused by excessive vehicular tramc
voted to deny the development application [or the Proposed Project on February 23, 2006;
WIIEREAS, the initial developer of the Proposed Project as plaintiff filed a law suit
against the PI1CBCC in 2008 alleging, among other things, that the PBCBCC had denied him
arbitrary, subsequent to which a judgment was issued. in favor of the defense denying all such
Court of Appeals.
2. The Proposed Project is too intense for the Jnterseetion;
T he foregoing Resolution appears in the minutes of the Association of the community or
h Q Co:; -{ CL comprising I / 6 homes as of this d- '5 day of WI

U,
2010.
~
.~
y.
I
-
. /}~.:;.(7
I
~
~r...----
\O:?
, ecrctary
"
Camino Woods II
Homeowners Association, Inc.
22442 San Miguel Way
Boca Raton, FL 33433
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the membership of our Association ("Association") opposes any

application or revisions to any portion of the Boca Del Mar Master Plan proposed by any
owner or prospective future purchaser of the property known as Mizner Trail Golf Club
and any Development Order Amendment Application to convert any portion of the
South Golf Course of Boca Del Mar (the Golf Course) to multi famil'y attached or Single
family residential units (under (lithe Proposed Project" at the northwest intersect,i on of
18 th Street and Military Trail (lithe intersection");
WHEREAS, the Proposed Project was originally submitted for Palm Beach County
Development Review Officer Comments ("ORO") on March 3,2004 and resubmitted on
March 29, 2005 and again on April 26, 2005 and rejected by the Palm Beach County
Zoning Board on two occasions and unanimously rejected by the Palm Beach County
Board of County Commissioners;
(i) The Project's lack of compliance of the Proposed Project with current open
space requirements of the Pa'i m Beach Unified Land Development Code (the
"ULDC")pertaining to all of Boca De,1Mar; and
(ii)A discrepancy in the Proposed Project which ignores that the south course
has no designated residential units in the PUD.
(iii) lack of compliance with development standards;
WHEREAS, there exist recorded covenants running with the land of Boca Del Mar
which restrict and dedicate the Golf Course to its current recreational"open space" and,
no building of residential use are permitted.
WHEREAS, the Palm Beach County Zoning Commission ("PBCZC") staff rejected
the initial development Proposal Project as planned on October 1, 2005, and the PBCZC
formaUy rejected the application on February 2, 2006;
2 aU
WHEREAS, the Palm Beach Board of County Commissioners ("PBCBCC") voted to deny
the development application for the Proposed Project as planned on October 1, 2005,
and the PBCZC formally rejected the app'l ication on Februa ry 2,2006;

voted to deny the development application on February 23, 2006;
WHEREAS, the initial developer of the Proposed Project as plaintiff filed a law
suit against PBCBCC in 2008 alleging, among other things, that PBCBCC had denied him
full use of his ,l and and development rights and that the county's development
standards were arbitrary, subsequent to which a judgment was issued in favor of the
defense denying al l such claims, and such judgment was subsequent ly appealed by the
plaintiff and upheld by the Circuit Court of Appeals.
2. There is no need for housing on the subject site;
3. This DOA request is not consistent with the intent of the Palm Beach County
Unified Land Deve'l opment Code, with respect to its intent, its layout and its function
and general characteristics.
4, This DOA request maximizes adverse effects on adjacent lands and diminishes
the value of surrounding residences.
5. This DOA request would cause a loss of an integral open space component
and unifying element of an established community.
6. There is no public benefit .
7. This DOA request regarding the subject site is not supported by changed
circumstances that require modification.
The forgoing Resolution appears in the minutes of the Association of the

mu nity Camino Woods II Comprisillg 49 homes as of this 12th day of October, 2010.
l. ~ ~;;r
Charles E. Lyday
President
RESOLUTION
WI IEREA S, the membership of our Association CAssociation") opposes any application
130ca Del Mar (the "Golf Course" ) to multi-family attached or single famiiy residential units (the
th
"Intersection");
WH EREAS, the Proposed Project was originally submitted for Palm Beach
County D e velopme nt Review Officer Comments ("ORO") on March 3, 2004 and resubmitted on
Commissioners:
WHEREAS, ORO Certification issues included but were not limited to:
(i) The Project's lack of Compliance of the Proposed Project with current open spaee
requirements of the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code (the "ULDC')
(ii) A discrepancy in the Proposed Project whieh ignores that there are no
unused/available ullits that can he developed in Boca Del Mar;
(iii) Lack of compl iance with development standards;
dai ly trunic trips will be introduced to the adjacent puhlic roadways, adding to existiIlg vehicular
conge stion, and requirin g additi o nal cOllstructi o n in and around the Intersection, re-routing of
111
traffic onto SW 18 S tre et, and disruption "ftraffic patte rns caused by excessive vehicular traffic
entering onto Military Trail \-vhich will lead to dangerous traffic patterns at the SW 1Sill
Street/Military Trail illlcrsccliol1, greater traffic congestion on all feeder 10c,:11 streets, and even
further de lays on all of thc local streets \vhich are already at or above capacity;
WHERE AS , there exist recorded covenants running with the land of Boca Del Mar which
and any change thereto has not been submilted to a vote of the Boca Del Mar residents; and
\VH EREAS, two residential pods located within Boca Del Mar were allowed to satisfy
WHEREAS , the Palm Beach County Zoning Commission ("PBCZC") staff rejected the
PBClC formally rejected the application on February 2, 2006;
voted to deny the development application for the Proposed Project on February 23 , 2006;
WHEREAS, the initial developer of the Proposed Project as plaintiff filed a Jaw suit
full usc of his land use and development rights and that the county's development standards were
arbitrary , subscyuent to which a judgment was issued in favor of the dcfense denying all such
Court of Appeals.
NOW, TIIEREFORE, be it resolved as follows:
The foregoing esolution appears in the minutes of the Association of the community of
AdcU· . comprising ~:J2:_ .. homes as of this J 1(3 day or

Cttvtt/,
2010.
sb
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF

PAllOS lJEL MAR CONTEMPO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, lNC.
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has become aware that an effort is being made to
seck Palm Beach County approval to build homes on a portion of the South Golf Course of Boca
th
Del Mar near the intersection of SW18 Street and Military Trail;
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that thousands of additional traffic trips will occur if the
subject propcrty is developed for residential use and the additional traffic may create dangerous
and congested conditions on the roads that serve our community;
WHEREAS , the Board of Directors believes that the proposed development of the South
Golf Course will adversely affect the residents of our community and that the proposed
development is a matter of conUl1on interest to the members of this Association.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of Patios Del Mar Contempo Homeowners
Association, 'Inc. resolves as follows:
I. The Association opposes the proposed project;

2. The Board of Directors may lend support to those groups who arc participating in
the legal efforts to oppose the project.
3. This resolution shall be rec rded among the n ' utes 0 the Association.
i
I RESPLVIlQN
WHEREAS, the mem+ip of our Association ("Association" opposes any lIppIication

I
or revisions to .nv
~~ . MM Master Plan propo3Cd by any owner or
portion. otiI the Boca De)
I .
~ fuoue ~-lf 1he _ know as Mizner T..u Golf Club ..d my
Development Order A AppJic8tion to convert any portion of the South Golf Course of
Boca Del Mar (the "Golf Co~"') to muJti-filmily attached or s1ngle family residential uniu (the
I
th
"Proposed Project") at the n+rthwest Intersection of 18 Street and Military Trail (the
"Intersection'"'-
. /. III
I
WHEREAS, the PropostId Project was originally submitlcd for Palm Beach
County ~Iopment Review queer Comments ("ORO") on March 3, 2004 and resubmitted on
March 29. 2~ and again on tpril 26, 2005 and TC!ioctcd by tho Pabn Beach Cotmty Zoning
Board on two occasions and +imOUSIY rejected by the Palm Beach County Board of County
Commissioners; I
WHEREAS,DRO ~eanon Issues included but W'eI'C not limited to:
(i) The Project' s lac~

of Compliance of the Proposed Project with current open space
requirements of the P~~h County Unifled Land Development COOe (the "ULDC')
pertaining to all of Bocail Mar; and .~
(it") A discrepancy in the Proposed Project which ianores that there are no
(iii) Lack of oomp1i with development st3ndards;
WHEREAS, tho Pro~~ Project Mtitnates no less than an additional 3.900 external
daily lraffic trips will be in"Itro<~~ to the adjacent publiCJ roadways. adding to existing vemcular
congestion, and requirtng onal consttuctlon ID and around the In~Ofi, .te-~ of
traffic onto SW 18· Street, IUId ~jsruption of traffic pa.trems caused by excessive vehicular traffic
rich
I
entering onto Military Trail will lead to dangerous traffic patterns at the ·SW 18th
I
j
StreetlMilitary Trail intersecti<1 greater traffic cortgrlStion on all feedet- JocaJ ~
further delays on all oftbe Ioc:aJ ~ which are already at or above capacIty;
I
I
WHEREAS, tbcre exist ~rded coverumts running with the 1aod of Boca Del
,
restrict and dediC8!e the Golf 4urse to its current recreational "open space" use in perpetuity
and any change thc:mo bas not ~ submittod to a vote oftile Boca Del Mar residents; and
WHEREAS, two res~ pods Ioc:ated within Boca Del Mar weft al109led to satiBfy
j .
tbc:ir recreation space rcquirmie.ltS by counting the Golf Course as opeuIrecreation space;
WHEREAS, the PalmB~ County Zoning CommIssion ("PBCZCj staff rejected the .
initial dcvelopmeoC propoaal raJ the Proposed Project as planned on October I, 2005, and the
-
PBCZC formally rejected the
I
Icatlon on February 2, 2006;
WlIEREAS, the Palm cb County Board of County Commissioners ("PBCBCC")

I
voted to deny the development application for the ~ ~ on February 23, 2006;
WHEREAS, the initial ~veJoper of the Proposed Project as plaintiff' flIed a law-suit
I
against the PBCBCC in 2008 4lcging. among other- things. that the PBCBCC hod denied him
!
fuU use of his land use and devetopmem rights and that the county's development standards \Wt'C
arbitrary, sub$equeot to which ~ judgment was Issued in favor or the defense denying all such
'clabna, and such judgment was ~sequently appealed by the plaintiff and uphold by the Circuit
Court ofAppeals. I
. NOW, THEREFORE. ~ it rcsoMd as follows:
1. The .Association ~ the Proposed Project;
2. The Proposed ~ is too intense for the InfttSeCtion;
appears in the minutes of the Association of the comnnmity of

,A.J;.LG-"-'u.L.Jcq,.--1--- comprising 67 homes as of this ;J..J. day of ~ J 10
By:~~
s! ebrlf /,C'gsILJ~vr-
19/19 3!:)tfd
07/2 1 /28 10 23 :5 9 55 180 77223 MARLEEN AYTON PAGE 02 /07
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the membership of our Association ("Associatioll") opJ:1oses any application
prospective future purcha.ser of the property know as Mizner Trail C&olf Club and any
Development Order Amendment Application to convert any portion of the ~Ioutb Golf Course of
th
"Proposed Project") at the northwest intersection of 18 Stt.eet and Military Trail (the
"I ntersection")~
WHEREAS, the Proposed Project was originally submitt:~d for Palm Beach
County Development Review Officer Comments ("DRaY» on March 3, 200,:~ all.d resubmitted on
March 29, 2005 and again on April 26, 2005 and rejected by the Palm B I!mch County Zoning
Board on two occasions and unaojmottsly rejected by the Palm Beach County Board of County
Commissioners;
.
WHEREAS, DRO Certification Issues included but were not limited 1;0 :
(i) The Project's lack ofCornpliance of the Proposed Project with current open space
pertaining to aJl of Boca De.l Mar; and
(ii) A discrepancy in the Proposed Project which ignores that thetln ar.e no
unused/available units that can be developed in Boca Del Mal:;
WHEREAS, the Proposed Project estimates no less than an additi.on.al 3,900 extetnal
daily traffic trips will be introduced to the adjacent public roadways, adding to ~!xisting vehicular
congestion, and requiring additional construction in and around the Intcrsi: ction, re-routing of
traffic onto SW 18 th Street, and disruption of traffic patterns caused by exce~sivc: vehicular traffic
entering onto Military nail which will lead to dangeroll!l traffic pattel:ns at the SW 18 th
07/21/2010 23:59 5518077223 MARLEEN AYTON PAGE El3/ 07
Street/Military Trail intcrscc[iuH, greater tmffic congc~tion on all feeder local street':>, und even
further delays on all of the local streets which are already at or above capaci1y;
WHEREA.s~ there exist recorded covenants running with the land of Boca Del Mar which
te~trict and dedicate the Golf Course to .its current recreational "open spa<)Ie" use itl perpetuity
and any change thereto has not been submitted to a vote of the Boca Del Ma, residents; and
WHEREAS, two residential pods located within Boca Del Mar were 2'Jlowed to satisfy
their recreation space requirements by counting the Golf Course ,as oJ:lenJrecreatiOD spacl:;
WHEREAS, the Palm Beach County Zoning Commission (UPBCZC') staff r~iected the
initial development proposal for thc Proposed Project as planned on October 1, 2005, and the
PBCZC formally rejected the application on February 2,2006;
WHEREAS, the Palm Beach County Board of County Commis~lion-ers ("PBCBCC")
voted to deny the development application for the Proposed Project on Febrnary 23,2006;
WHEREAS, the initial developer of the Proposed Project as plai :ltiff ftIed n law suit
full use of his land m;e and development rights and that the county's development standards were
arbitrary, subsequent to which a judgment was issued in favor of the def(:nse denying all such
claims, and such judgment was subsequently appealed by the plaintiff and l:1pheld by the Citcuh
Court of Appeals ,

RESOLUTION
or re~isions to any portion of the Boca Del Mar Master Plan proposed by any owner or
Boca Del Mar (the "GoJfCourse") to multi-family attached or single family residential units (the
th
"Proposed Project") at the northwest intersection of II8 Street and Military Trail (the
"Intersection");
County Development Review Officer Comments ("ORO") on March 3, 2004 and resubmitted on
Commissioners;
WHEREAS, DRO Certification Issues induded but were not limited to:
requirements of the Pajm Beach County Unified Land Development Code (the "ULDC")
WHEREAS, the Proposed Project estimates no Jess than an additional 3,900 external
daily traffic trips wil.l be introduced to the adjacent public roadways, adding to existing vehicular
traffic onto S W 18 th Street, and disruption of traffic patterns caused by excessive vehicular traffic
StreetlMilitary Trail intersection, greater traffic congestion on all feeder local streets, and even
restrict and dedicate the Golf Course to its current recreational "open space" use in pef1>ctuity
initial development proposal for the Proposed Project as planned on October 1, 2005, and the
voted to deny the development app'Jication for the Proposed Project on February 23, 2006;
claims, and such judgment was subsequcntly appealed by the plaintiff and upheld by the Circuit
Court of Appeals.
The foregoing Resolution appears in the minutes of the Association of the community 9.f--:
Ecv..;~C). ()J!J!.o rt2 comprising 5/"fo homes of this ~ay of ~~

2010. ) 0 By: IZ-y~-!
,/
.{k?ctb4,( Ji 1Yo
~)
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the membership of our Association ("Association") opposes any

application or revisions to any portion of the Boca Del Mar Master Plan proposed by any
owner or prospective future purchaser of the property know as Mizner Trail Golf Club and
any Development Order Amendment Application to convert any portion of the South Golf
Course of Boca Del Mar (the "Golf Course") to multi-family attached or single family
residential units (the "Proposed Project") at the northwest intersection of 18th Street and
Military Trail (the "Intersection");
WHEREAS, the Proposed Project was originally submitted for Palm Beach County
Development Review Officer Comments ("ORO") on March 3, 2Q04 and resubmitted on
Board on two occasions and unanimously rejected by the Palm Beach County Board of
County ommissioners;
WHEREAS, DRO Certification Issues included but were not limited to:
(i) The Project's lack of Compliance of the Proposed Project with current open
space requirements of the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development
Code (the "ULDC") pertaining to all of Boca Del Mar; and
(ii) A discrepancy in the Proposed Projcct which ignores that there are no
daily traffic trips will be introduced to the adjacent puhlic roadways, adding to existing
vehicular congestion, and requiring additional construction in and around the Intersection,
re-routing of traffic onto SW 18th Street, and disruption of traffic patterns caused by
excessive vehicular traffic entering onto Military Trail which will lead to dangerous traffic
patterns at th e SW 18 1h Street/Military Trail intersection, greater traffic congestion on all
feedcr local streets, and even further del;l)'s Oil :dl of the local streets which are alrcildy [1\ or
above capacity;
WHEREAS, there exist recorded covenants running with the land of Boca Del Mar
which restrict and dedicate the Golf Course to its current recreational "open space" use in
perPetuity and any change thereto has not been submitted to a vote of the Boca Del Mar
residents; and
WHEREAS, two residential pods located within Boca Del Mar were allowed to
satisfy their recreation space requirements by counting the Golf Course as open/recreation
space;
WHEREAS, the Palm Beach County Zoning Commission ("PBCZC") staff rejected
the initial development proposal for the Proposed Project as planned on October I, 2005,
and the PBCZC formally rejected the application on rebruary 2, 2006;

voted to deny the development application for the Proposed Project on February 23 ,2006;
against the PBCBCC in 2008 alleging, among other things, that the PBCBCC had denied
him ful l use of his land use and development rights and that tbe county's development
standards were arbitrary, subsequent to which a judgment was issued in favor of the defense
denying all such claims, and such judgment was subsequently appealed by the plaintiff and
upheld by the Circuit Court of Appeals.
The foregoing Reso ution appears III the minutes of the Associatiolj of the
community of .uL!!Vlo!~m...~'~!Io4-~=i----=-"'-'--=------ compris0Jhomes as of this ~ day of,
5~w ,2010. ~6
L3y: ~
Iru,l.:!
President
RESOLUTION
"Proposed Project") at the northwest intersection of 18 th Street and Military Trail (the
"Intersection") ;
County Development Review Officer Comments ("ORO") on March 3, 2004 and resubmitted on
Comm issioners;
traffic onto SW 18 Street, and disruption of traffic patterns caused by exce~sive vehicular traffic
th
StreetJMilitary Trai intersection, greater traffic congestion on all feeder local streets, and even
PBCZC formal.ly rejected the application on fL:hruary 2, 2006;
WHEREAS, the initial; developer of the Proposed Project as plaintiff filed a law suit
claims and such judgment was subsequently appealed by the plaintiff and upheld by the Circuit
Court of Appeals.
J. The Association opposes the Proposed Project;
The foregoing Resolution appears in the minutes of s ciation ofJ,he community of

-:::rIJTi[}~.IT comprising hom s as f this t i day of~-Y
....3..5"_
2010.
By: ~~ .
4-----~----4---~-------
RESOLUTION
or revisions to any portion of the Boca Del Mar Master Plan proposed by any ovmer or
Boca Del Mar (the "Golf Course") LO multi-fami Iy attached or jsingle family residential units (the
th
"Intersection ");
WHEREAS, th e Proposed Project was orig]~aily submitted for Palm Beach
County Development Review Officer Comments ("ORO") on March 3,2004 and resubmitted on
Commissioners;
WHEREAS, ORO Certification Issues included hut were not limited to:
WHEREAS , the Proposed Project estimates no less than an additional 3,900 external
congestion, and requiring additional construction in and around the [ntersection, re-routing of
traffic onto SW 18 th Street, and disruption of traffic patterns caused by excessive vehicular traffic
entering onto Military Trail which will lead to dangerous traffic patterns at the SW 18 lh
StreeUMilitary Trail intersection, greater traffic congestion on all feeder local streets, and even
further delays on all of the local streets which are already at or above capacity ;
WHEREAS, two residential pods located within Boca' Del Mar were allowed to satisfy
WHEREAS, the Palm Beach County Zoning Corrunission ("PBCZC") staff rejected the
initial development proposal for the Proposed Project as planned on October J, 2005, and the
futl use of his land use and development rights and that the county's development standards were
arbitrary , subsequent to which a judgment was issued in favor of the defense denying all such
Court of Appeals.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved as follows :
1. The Association opposes the Proposed Project,
/: T?7for$goin~esolution appears in the minutes of the Association of the commun~

/t/6//U/L'r/4.-<./C comprising 53 homes as of this /,6 day ofS&: ?/<Id~~
2010. 7 ,

Golf Course Problem 2011, Theodore Levy Letter &amp; Second Coalition Document Regarding Mizner Trail Golf Course, April 17, 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Golf Course Problem 2011, Theodore Levy Letter &amp; Second Coalition Document Regarding Mizner Trail Golf Course, April 17, 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

~,

Tcl:{56I)- 640-949J I'n.

West Palm Beach, Florida 33417

UCO; LEITERS TO EDITOR:

Re: Our Golf CD.,.. Problems

3) Its circumstances so exactly replicate our golfcourse dispute, but for a

change ofname & a~ it is virtually our exact~. A developer bad

purchased an 18-bole golf course abutting a Palm Bach County

residential condominium development, and sought a zoning approval to

build houses tbereon9

4) Vigorously fought by the developer,. and vigorously opposed by the

various associations within the development - and the subsequent

perpetuity" was invoked.

much likely success, " ... in perpetuity" towards building residential

housing facing our wonderful and beautiful Century Village.

6) Two nice results:

a) I am in possession ofthe complete, ~ book comprehensively

reciting the actual res~ defensive position and lawyers defensive

position in the [Palm Beach County] 'Mizner Trail Golf Course'

b) I freely offer it to our Century Village. In addition to its guidance, it

c) Where is our developer going? Unless our developer plans to go into

i) lnstead of our facing a decrease in our property values resulting

d) C aution: "Don't count your chickens before they hatch": We are

f) A Jawyer~s work has already been done; it would be largely a matter

COMMUNITIES OPPOSED TO THE CONVERSION

MIZNER TRAIL GOLF COURSE

communities with signed resolutions, etc.

Addison point 172

Arbor club 300

Communities Opposed to Conversion

Mizner Trail Golf Course

December 29, 2010

From : The Second Coalition Against Mizner Development

Re: Mizner Trail Zoning Application 2010 - 1728

With Regard to the Maximum Allowable Density Argument:

With Regard to the Changed Conditions Argument:

With Regard to the Impact Argument:

With Regard to Revenue for the County:

With Regard to the Boca Del Mar Improvement Association:

Regarding Alternative Uses:

The Second Coalition Against Mizner Development

November 10, 2010

Re: Mizner Tra iil Redevelopment Proposal

Dear Palm Beach County:

The proposed redevelopmentof the Mizner Tra\l, golf course fails to

The renewed application proposes to eliminate a golf course that is

The integration of open space corridors and features such as golf

This proposal to be grossly inadequate to mitigate the adverse

For each of these reasons, the proposed site p lan is inconsistent

The unique features of the site and reliance of the neighborhood on

There are no changed conditions or circumstances that require a

The a ppli,ca nt also presents no testimony to address the supply,

The applicant also fails to indicate any efforts (such as

Furthermore, considerati,on of the ongoing success experienced by

The applicant suggests that a dramatic ,i ncrease in golf course

Taken as a whole, we consider the changed adverse impacts and

The subject site serves not merely as a golf course, but is a

The app.l icant has provided no indication that these multifaceted

Most r ecently, in Palm Beach Polo, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, the

In fact, the court has already upheld the denial of redevelopment of

County Unified Land Development Code.

2. This request does not minimize adverse effects on adjacent

3. This request would cause loss of an integral open space

component and unifying element of an established community.

Golf Course Problem 2011, Theodore Levy Letter & Second Coalition Document Regarding Mizner Trail Golf Course, April 17, 2011

Golf Course Problem 2011, Theodore Levy Letter & Second Coalition Document Regarding Mizner Trail Golf Course, April 17, 2011