The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutO'Hare vs Town of Gulf Stream - 4th DCA IPM.Note O'Hare vs Town of Gulf Stream - 4th DCA Bill Thrasher Randolph, John C. Bill Thrasher SMTP JRandolph@jonesfoster.com O'Hare vs Town of Gulf Stream - 4th DCA EX /O=GULFSTREAMTH/OU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BTHRASHER EX /O=GULFSTREAMTH/OU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BTHRASHER Microsoft Mail Internet Headers Version 2.0 Received: from barracuda.jones-foster.com ([216.119.226.125]) by mail.gulf-stream.org with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:05:04 -0500 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1362078299-048c990c117cf10001-OA1nEr Received: from JFJSEXCH1.jones-foster.com (jfjsexch1.jones-foster.com [192.168.100.59]) by barracuda.jones-foster.com with ESMTP id COSLh3gcSbuTSe3o for <bthrasher@gulf-stream.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:04:59 -0500 (EST) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: JRandolph@jonesfoster.com Received: from JFJSEXCH1.jones-foster.com ([192.168.100.59]) by JFJSEXCH1 ([192.168.100.59]) with mapi; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:05:35 -0500 From: "Randolph, John C." <JRandolph@jonesfoster.com> To: "'Bill Thrasher' (bthrasher@gulf-stream.org)" <bthrasher@gulf-stream.org> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:05:35 -0500 Subject: O'Hare vs Town of Gulf Stream - 4th DCA Thread-Topic: O'Hare vs Town of Gulf Stream - 4th DCA X-ASG-Orig-Subj: O'Hare vs Town of Gulf Stream - 4th DCA Thread-Index: Ac4V5nfsyaK9/ydSRCaO4KvaQ1AYVA== Message-ID: <C19736C2754F8B4FA3952DD7786576020106360FCC@JFJSEXCH1> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_009_C19736C2754F8B4FA3952DD7786576020106360FCCJFJSEXCH1_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Barracuda-Connect: jfjsexch1.jones-foster.com[192.168.100.59] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1362078299 X-Barracuda-URL: http://192.168.100.250:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1 X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at jones-foster.com X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: -1001.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=-1001.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=9.0 KILL_LEVEL=1000.0 Return-Path: btv1==771a08d3f8e==JRandolph@jonesfoster.com X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2013 19:05:05.0012 (UTC) FILETIME=[84825B40:01CE15E6] --_009_C19736C2754F8B4FA3952DD7786576020106360FCCJFJSEXCH1_ Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_008_C19736C2754F8B4FA3952DD7786576020106360FCCJFJSEXCH1_"; type="multipart/alternative" --_008_C19736C2754F8B4FA3952DD7786576020106360FCCJFJSEXCH1_ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C19736C2754F8B4FA3952DD7786576020106360FCCJFJSEXCH1_" --_000_C19736C2754F8B4FA3952DD7786576020106360FCCJFJSEXCH1_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --_000_C19736C2754F8B4FA3952DD7786576020106360FCCJFJSEXCH1_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --_000_C19736C2754F8B4FA3952DD7786576020106360FCCJFJSEXCH1_-- --_008_C19736C2754F8B4FA3952DD7786576020106360FCCJFJSEXCH1_ Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="image001.jpg" Content-Description: image001.jpg Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.jpg"; size=3318; creation-date="Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:05:35 GMT"; modification-date="Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:05:35 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.jpg@01CE15BC.A18388B0> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 --_008_C19736C2754F8B4FA3952DD7786576020106360FCCJFJSEXCH1_-- --_009_C19736C2754F8B4FA3952DD7786576020106360FCCJFJSEXCH1_ Content-Type: application/pdf; name="1FN5124-request oral argument.PDF" Content-Description: 1FN5124-request oral argument.PDF Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="1FN5124-request oral argument.PDF"; size=169072; creation-date="Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:02:33 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:50:20 GMT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 --_009_C19736C2754F8B4FA3952DD7786576020106360FCCJFJSEXCH1_ Content-Type: application/pdf; name="1FN5132-petitioner appendix.PDF" Content-Description: 1FN5132-petitioner appendix.PDF Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="1FN5132-petitioner appendix.PDF"; size=1870349; creation-date="Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:02:33 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:52:50 GMT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 --_009_C19736C2754F8B4FA3952DD7786576020106360FCCJFJSEXCH1_ Content-Type: application/pdf; name="1FN8623-motion leave file amended petition and appendix.PDF" Content-Description: 1FN8623-motion leave file amended petition and appendix.PDF Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="1FN8623-motion leave file amended petition and appendix.PDF"; size=240277; creation-date="Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:02:34 GMT"; modification-date="Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:59:22 GMT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 --_009_C19736C2754F8B4FA3952DD7786576020106360FCCJFJSEXCH1_ Content-Type: application/pdf; name="1FN8809-petition writ certiorari.PDF" Content-Description: 1FN8809-petition writ certiorari.PDF Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="1FN8809-petition writ certiorari.PDF"; size=901135; creation-date="Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:02:34 GMT"; modification-date="Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:01:16 GMT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 --_009_C19736C2754F8B4FA3952DD7786576020106360FCCJFJSEXCH1_-- Randolph, John C. SMTP JRandolph@jonesfoster.com Bill Thrasher OHARE RECEIVED O'Hare vs Town of Gulf Stream - 4th DCA Bill, Please see the attached Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by O’Hare in which he asks the 4th District Court of Appeal to overturn the decision of the Circuit Court. We will follow up accordingly with our representation of the Town. JOHN C. RANDOLPH John C. Randolph Attorney Direct Dial: 561.650.0458 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | jrandolph@jonesfoster.com <mailto:jrandolph@jonesfoster.com> Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com <http://www.jonesfoster.com/> U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. <C19736C2754F8B4FA3952DD7786576020106360FCC@JFJSEXCH1> Bill, Please see the attached Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by O’Hare in which he asks the 4th District Court of Appeal to overturn the decision of the Circuit Court. We will follow up accordingly with our representation of the Town. JOHN C Bill Thrasher Bill Thrasher EX /O=GULFSTREAMTH/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=CC9578126D55499EA8C1E79B43F844AE-BILL THRASH EX /O=GULFSTREAMTH/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=CC9578126D55499EA8C1E79B43F844AE-BILL THRASH Randolph, John C. Randolph, John C. BTHRASHER BTHRASHER Bill Thrasher Bill Thrasher II=0101CEF9E0678BC8D666F3EB8341A96E235BEFEFF1F9;Version=Version 15.0 (Build 775.0), Stage=H4 en Bill Thrasher EX /O=GULFSTREAMTH/OU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BTHRASHER bthrasher@gulf-stream.org bthrasher Bill Thrasher SMTP bthrasher@gulf-stream.org Bill Thrasher image001.jpg .jpg image001.jpg image001.jpg image/jpeg image001.jpg@01CE15BC.A18388B0 inline EnUs 1FN5124-request oral argument.PDF .PDF 1FN512~1.PDF 1FN5124-request oral argument.PDF application/pdf attachment EnUs 1FN5132-petitioner appendix.PDF Tab 1 Tab 2 Tab 3 Tab 4 PLAN REVIEV ER: DATE: TOTAL FEES DUE: $ Rvsd 6/10 ^ ^ : 1 v' eu I I i n: UZ FAA o t 4 i7 L11 f1h;i.^tAt BCH CO tH l Ml'- H&; 001 /001 •r 6^ )1('slJ O(1 IAC ^., --^ -NOV 15 2011- iijr CITY OF DRAYBEACH REVISION REQUEST Date: Address Where Work is Being Done (to include unit or bay n umber): Permit Number: + -' ^' T r. 1Z{a ^(11U5 ii^^^ t 'v C1^7 r SS ) APPLICANT NAME: OO`t' [ £2 Phone: ( } •O 7 o r Fax, ( ) r} p 3 U Contact Person: Cell Phone #. ( ) ADDED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR THIS CHANGE: S-2(^ d a EXPLAIN REVISION: 0/u.n}M V_11 ! S ) as OL r _,4.1 ! )nf. NOTE: To avoid delay, the revision needs to be clear on the (2) drawings submitted. The Plan Reviewers may need the job site plans. I understand a fee may be charged in accordance with the City of Delray Beach L_DR 2.4-21 The fee for a revision is $75.00 for the first sheet, and $1.00 for each additional revised sheet. For ADDED CONSTRUCTION COST, the fee will be based on the Building Permit Fees. SIGNED f4\/\ ROUTING: PATH PJIPT APPROVED BYIDATE: OFFICE USE ONLY FEES: REVISION FEE: $ -ADDED VALUE PERMIT FEE: $ OTHER FEES AS APPLICABLE: Parks 5 Public B}dgs $ Schools $ Roa $ Radon $ DPR $ Other S Tab 5 Tab 6 Tab 7 ARTICLE VI. DISTRICT STANDARDS Sec. 70-186. Generally. (a) The district standards, which are outlined in section 70-187, are based on the individual characteristics of the five single-family zoning districts discussed earlier in this chapter. The objective is to maintain and protect the existing distinctive character of each of the districts. As a result, sometimes even relatively subtle differences in design direction have been provided for in the standards. (b) These district standards are intended to be used in conjunction with areawide standards. Because many of the concepts are discussed and illustrated in article V, reference should be made to article V for a better understanding of a standard's intent. However, where the provisions of this article conflict with those in article V, the provisions of this article shall prevail. (c) Finally, it should be noted that these standards are the result of all of the issues discussed earlier in this chapter and clarification of intent may in fact be found in articles I and II. These standards are intended to allow a reasonable amount of individual design flexibility while keeping the interests of each neighborhood or zoning district in mind. Sec. 70-187. Table of district standards. Zoning Districts Gulf Stream Core Ocean West Beachfront North/South Place au Soleil 1. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE Preferred Gulf StreamBermuda Anglo Caribbean British Colonial Colonial West Indies Georgian Med. Revival Gulf StreamBermuda Anglo Caribbean British Colonial Colonial West Indies Georgian Med. Revival Med. Revival Gulf StreamBermuda Anglo Caribbean British Colonial Colonial West Indies Georgian Gulf StreamBermuda Anglo Caribbean British Colonial Colonial West Indies Georgian Med. Revival Gulf StreamBermuda Anglo Caribbean British Colonial Colonial West Indies Georgian Med. Revival Discouraged Monterrey Non-descript, which is to be defined as not having an apparent architectural style including but not limited to vernacular. Prohibited A-Frame, Geodesic domes, Art Deco, Contemporary, Cracker Other theme architecture not characteristic of South Florida or Gulf Stream 2. ROOFS (not applicable to decorative elements or roof features such as chimney caps, cupolas and dormers) Required 90% of visible roof must maintain a minimum slope of 10% True to architectural style Preferred Low pitched hip White tile If two-story: dormers and stepbacks Low to medium pitched hip or hipgable combinations White tile Low to medium pitched hip or hipgable combinations White tile for Gulf Stream-Bermuda Red barrel tile for Med. Revival True to architectural style Low pitched hip White tile for Gulf Stream-Bermuda Red barrel tile for Med. Revival Discouraged Front gable Front gable Barrel tile Pan tile Front gable Styles which incorporate very low or steep slopes S-tile and roll tile Front gable § 70-187GULF STREAM DESIGN MANUAL CD70:77Supp. No. 1 Zoning Districts Gulf Stream Core Ocean West Beachfront North/South Place au Soleil Prohibited Steep roofs (over 45°) S-tile and Roll tile S-tile and Roll tile S-tile and Roll tile Mansard Non-earthtone colors (except white) Bright, un-naturalistic looking roof material Metal roofs1 Primary color tiles/shingles Gambrel Flat (over 10% visible) All white tile other than flat cement tile 1Certain metal roofs determined by the town to be appropriate to the structure and to the neighborhood may be approved only in instances of re-roofing of existing structures based upon an engineer's certification that the existing structure will not support a tile roof. Additionally, unpainted copper may be used either as a decorative accent or on minor accessory structures. 3. BUILDING HEIGHT Required Under 30 feet Under 30 feet Under 35 feet Under 30 feet Under 30 feet Preferred One-story One- or two- stories One- or two- stories One- or two- stories One-story Discouraged One-story ceiling height over 15 feet One-story ceiling height over 15 feet One-story ceiling height over 15 feet Prohibited Abrupt grade change between house and yard ("pedestal house" appearance) 4. WALLS (applicable to all walls located between the street and the minor accessory setback line. The measurement of all walls referenced herein shall be from the lowest grade adjacent to the wall.) Required 4—6 feet walls must be screened from A1A by landscaping Any walls or fences along A1A must be screened by landscaping Walls must be finished on both sides Preferred None Low wall/fence combination Low wall/hedge combination Correspond to architecture Intermittent or concealed by plant material Correspond to architecture Intermittent or concealed by plant material Correspond to architecture Accent only Correspond to architecture Not to exceed more than 75% of frontage None Low wall/fence combination Low wall/hedge combination Correspond to architecture Simple, uncluttered, traditional forms Discouraged Use as perimeter wall Entry or accent wall Excessive ornamentation including reveals, decorative tile, banding, etc. Prohibited Walls over 4 feet Perimeter walls Entry piers over 5 feet Walls and entry piers over 6 feet measured from the lowest grade adjacent to the wall Walls less than 12 feet from A1A r.o.w. line Walls and entry piers over 8 feet measured from the lowest grade adjacent to the wall Walls and entry piers over 6 feet measured from the lowest grade adjacent to the wall Walls over 4 feet Perimeter walls Entry piers over 5 feet Unfinished concrete block (painted block is not considered "finished") Open bond "web" Solid continuous exposed walls Walls closer than 7.5 feet to the edge of street pavement Walls on rights-of-way or in visibility triangle 5. ENTRANCE GATES Required None § 70-187 GULF STREAM CODE CD70:78Supp. No. 1 Zoning Districts Gulf Stream Core Ocean West Beachfront North/South Place au Soleil Preferred Discrete or hidden Corresponding to architectural style Corresponding to architectural style Discrete or hidden Corresponding to architectural style None Discouraged All All All Prohibited All Primary color Over 6 feet Solid Primary color Over 8 feet Over 6 feet Solid Over 6 feet Solid 6. FENCES (applicable to all fences located between the street and the minor accessory setback line. The measurement of all fences referenced herein shall be from the lowest grade adjacent to the wall.) Required Fences must be screened from view from A1A by landscaping Fences must be screened from view from any public or private roadway by landscaping Pools 4 feet minimum Fences must be finished on both sides or screened Consistent with architectural style of house Preferred Low-open wood Low-open Intermittent or concealed by plant material Consistent with architectural style Consistent with architectural style Intermittent or concealed by plant material None Low-open wood Discouraged PVC, plastic or vinyl Solid (for example, stockade or shadowbox) Unpainted PVC, plastic or vinyl PVC, plastic or vinyl PVC, plastic or vinyl Solid (for example, stockade or shadowbox) PVC, plastic or vinyl Fronting property Solid (for example, stockade or shadowbox) Unpainted Prohibited Over 4 feet Over 6 feet Fences less than 12 feet from A1A r.o.w. line Over 8 feet Over 6 feet Over 4 feet Chainlink (unless concealed by plant material) Fences closer than 7.5 feet to the edge of street pavement Fences on rights-of-way or in visibility triangle 7. WALLS AND FENCES: ALONG SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES AND LOCATIONS NOT VISIBLE FROM STREET (Outside of front setback area. The measurement of all walls and fences referenced herein shall be from the lowest grade adjacent to the wall.) Required Pools—4 feet minimum Walls must be finished on both sides Fences must be two-sided or screened Preferred Consistent with architectural style Discouraged Walls or fences over 6 feet Walls or fences over 6 feet Walls or fences over 6 feet Prohibited Chainlink (unless concealed by plant material) Any wall or fence over 8 feet, as measured from the lowest grade adjacent to the wall Walls and fences over 4 feet located between minor accessory setback line and waters connected to the Intracoastal Waterway or the 1978 CCCL Solid continuous exposed walls 8. DRIVEWAYS Required Sufficient to provide two off-street parking spaces. § 70-187GULF STREAM DESIGN MANUAL CD70:79Supp. No. 1 Zoning Districts Gulf Stream Core Ocean West Beachfront North/South Place au Soleil Preferred Pervious material for example: Chattahoochee stone Pavers Not to exceed 50% of front yard Circular drives with island plantings Pervious material for example: Chattahoochee stone Pavers Pervious material for example: Chattahoochee stone Pavers Pervious material for example: Chattahoochee stone Pavers Pervious material or textured monolithic surface for example: Chattahoochee stone Pavers Textured concrete Discouraged Asphalt Impervious driveway surfaces Untextured monolithic surfaces Impervious driveway surfaces Asphalt Impervious driveway surfaces Prohibited Painted driveways Primary colors Exposed earth Tire strips 9. FRONT YARDS Required Compliance with the North Ocean Overlay District requirements Preferred Screen from street by 5 feet to 8 feet hedge or by low fence (4 feet or under) Large spacious turf or low planted area, concealed by perimeter plantings Dense natives Scattered canopy trees Screened from street by walls/ plantings/ gates Naturalistic plantings Informal Layered lush/exotics Open, naturalistic plantings Informal groupings Lush/exotics Open large turf or planted area Scattered canopy trees Foundation plantings Discouraged Open yards Wide open view from street Wide open view from street Tall hedges Prohibited Hardscape over 60% of front yard Hardscape over 20% of front yard Hardscape over 20% of frontyard Hardscape over 60% of front yard Hardscape over 40% of front yard (Ord. No. 00-1, §§ 26, 51, 3-10-00; Ord. No. 03-3, § 1, 5-9-03; Ord. No. 03-9, §§ 3—6, 10-10-03; Ord. No. 008-5, § 4, 9-5-08) Secs. 70-188—70-205. Reserved. § 70-187 GULF STREAM CODE CD70:80Supp. No. 1 Tab 8 Sec. 70-99. Roof design, slope and materials. Roofs are a major visual element and should be carefully considered as to the proportion, texture, color and compatibility with both the house style and neighboring buildings. Similarities in roof types create a visual continuity in the streetscape and neighborhood. Broad low roof lines with overhanging eaves provide a reassuring sense of shelter and create shade for underlying windows. (1) Preferred. Exposed gutters and downspouts painted to match adjacent roof or wall material Exposed rafter tails Flashing, vent stacks, and pipes painted to match adjacent building surface Gutters and downspouts designed as a continuous architectural feature Hip or gable roofs Low pitched roofs (under 28° or 6:12 slope) Roof material true to architectural style Roof overhangs (two to 21/2 feet) Roof pitches over porches or ancillary structures (under 45° or 1:1 slope) § 70-98 GULF STREAM CODE CD70:44 Simple roof geometry Tile roof material (2) Discouraged. Roof material uncharacteristic of architectural style or zoning district "S"-shaped tile in some districts Shed roofs Steep slopes (over 45° or 1:1 slope) Very low pitched roofs (less than 18° or 5:12 slope) (3) Prohibited. Asphalt shingles except on existing polo cottages and homes with existing asphalt or wood shingles Bright, unnaturalistic-looking roof material Flat roofs visible over ten percent of total roof area, except when used at peaks to reduce roof massing Gambrel roofs Glazed skylights on the streetside Inconsistent roofing materials visible from the exterior of the property, except approved accent materials Mansard roofs § 70-99GULF STREAM DESIGN MANUAL CD70:45OC, Corr. Metal roofs (except unpainted copper when used as a decorative accent or on minor accessory structures) Non-earthtone colors (except white), for example: blue, peach, pink, teal or yellow Primary color tiles and shingles Roll tile and similar tile styles in all districts except Place Au Soleil S-Tile in all districts except Place Au Soleil Solar panels on the streetside Unnecessarily complex or monolithic roof design All white tile other than flat cement tile (Ord. No. 00-1, § 36, 3-10-00; Ord. No. 03-9, § 2, 10-10-03) Sec. 70-100. Roof and eave heights. (a) Generally. (1) The height and number of eave lines and the overall height of a structure play an important role in establishing visual continuity with other structures on the street and maintaining an appropriate residential/human scale. Most structures in the town are characterized by simple roof designs with low to medium eave heights and roof heights. This type of design emphasizes the horizontal dimension of the structure while minimizing the vertical dimension. (2) Roof height is measured from the top of the first finished floor to the highest exterior point on the roof. Eave height is measured from the top of the first finished floor to the top of the roof beam at the end of the beam (top of flashing). Different eave heights establish different eave lines. Two or more separate roof areas with the same eave height are considered to have the same eave line. (3) Roof features can provide appropriate design articulation to a roof area, but should be used sparingly to avoid unnecessary and undesirable complexity. Roof features include, but are not limited to, chimneys, cupolas, decorative towers, dormers, and small cut-outs and extensions. Two or more dormers are considered to be one roof feature, as are two or more chimneys. (4) Entry features, if used, should provide a sense of arrival to visitors, yet should not overpower them or the remainder of the structure. The scale and proportion of entry features should be consistent with the rest of the structure, varying just enough to provide a focal point to the front of the house. (b) One story homes. (1) Preferred. Eave heights: From eight feet to ten feet six inches (from eight feet to 12 feet for entry features) Eave lines: Three or less Roof features: Three or less visible per building side Roof heights: 20 feet or less (24 feet or less for roof features) (2) Discouraged. Eave heights: Between ten feet six inches and 12 feet (between 12 and 14 feet for entry features) Eave lines: Four Roof features: Four visible per building side Roof heights: Between 20 and 24 feet (between 24 and 28 feet for roof features) § 70-99 GULF STREAM CODE CD70:46OC, Corr. Tab 9 Tab 10 Tab 11 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY APPELLATE DIVISION (CIVIL) CASE NO.: 5020 12CAO 11 078XXXXMB DIVISION: AY CHRISTOPHER O'HARE, Petitioner, v. TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Respondent. ----------------------~/ RESPONSE TO AMENDED PETITION FOR CERTIORARI Respondent, TOWN OF GULF STREAM (the "Town"), responds to the amended petition for writ of certiorari filed by petitioner, CHRISTOPHER O'HARE ("Mr. O'Hare"), as directed by the order to show cause this Court issued on September 10, 2012. The amended petition should be denied for the following reasons:1 1 The following symbols are used: (A-_)= the appendix attached to Mr. O'Hare's amended petition for writ of certiorari; (AA-_) =the appendix to this response. All emphasis is supplied unless otherwise indicated. 1 I. JURISDICTION This Court has certiorari jurisdiction to review the Town's decision that Mr. O'Hare may not install a metal roof on his home until a variance to permit such material has been applied for and approved. See Broward Countv v. G.B.V. Int'l, Ltd., 787 So. 2d 838, 843 (Fla. 2001) (explaining that circuit courts have certiorari jurisdiction to review quasi-judicial actions of local government agencies); Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(c)(3). On certiorari review, this Court cannot reweigh the evidence. Id. at 846. Rather, the Court is limited to determining: (1) whether the Town accorded procedural due process; (2) whether the Town observed the essential requirements of the law; and (3) whether competent substantial evidence supports the Town's administrative findings and judgment. See, e.g., Broward Countv, 787 So. 2d at 843; Haines Citv Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995). Mr. O'Hare failed to establish any of these requirements for this Court to issue a writ of certiorari. I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS Mr. O'Hare owns residential real property located at 2520 Avenue Au Solei!, Gulf Stream, Florida 33483 (the "Property) (A-3). This case concerns Mr. O'Hare's request to replace the existing roof on the Property with a metal roof. The Town of Gulf Stream Municipal Code of Ordinances (the "Code") generally 2 prohibits metal roofs, but provides that "certain metal roofs determined by the town to be appropriate to the structure and to the neighborhood may be approved only in instances of re-roofmg of existing structures based upon an engineer's certification that the existing structure will not support a tile roof' (A-2). There has been a concrete tile roof on the Property for forty (40) years (A-6:6, 7, 8). The Property was built in 1972 with a concrete roof, it was re-roofed in 1999 with similar concrete material, and it has been able to support a concrete roof to date (A-6:5). On August 29, 2011, Mr. O'Hare submitted a re-roof permit application ("Permit Application") to the City of Delray Beach requesting a permit for a flat, white, concrete tile roof(A-1). The Permit Application was approved on the same day (A-1). At some point between August 29, 2011 and November 15, 2011, Mr. O'Hare decided he wanted a metal roof instead of a concrete tile roof. On November 15, 2011, Mr. O'Hare's re-roofing contractor, Rooftec Corporation, submitted a revision request to the Permit Application which states, "Customer wants to change to metal roof' (AA-1). Approximately one month after Mr. O'Hare submitted the revision to the Permit Application, he retained Terrence E. Lunn, an engineer, to inspect the 3 Property and provide a certification that the Property could not support a concrete tile roof (Am. Pet. at 5). On December 14, 2011, Mr. Lunn executed a letter stating, "I certifY to the best of my knowledge, belief, and professional judgment that the referenced roof framing will not support a tile roof' (A-3). The letter also states, "Ifl can be of further service please call." (!.d.) On February 21, 2012, Mr. O'Hare provided William Thrasher, the Town Manager ("Mr. Thrasher"), with a copy of Mr. Lunn's certification (Am. Pet. at 5). On March 6, 2012, Mr. Thrasher, acting as administrator, issued an administrative decision informing Mr. O'Hare that in order to receive approval to install a metal roof, he would have to obtain a variance as provided in the Town's Land Use Code. (Id.) On March 31, 2012, Mr. O'Hare appealed this administrative decision to the Board of Adjustment (the "Board") (A-5). The Town gave notice to Mr. O'Hare that a public hearing on the appeal would take place on April 13, 2012 (AA-2). The Town commenced the public hearing on April 13, 2012 which was continued on May 11, 2012 (Am. Pet. at 6). The Town sent Mr. O'Hare and his counsel copies ofthe Agenda in advance of each hearing (AA-3; AA-4). The Town took steps to verifY the engineer's report, but Mr. O'Hare refused to provide backup for Mr. Lunn's certification and did not allow the Town to 4 inspect the Property. Specifically, at the April 13, 2012 hearing, the Town Clerk testified that she requested three dates and times that Mr. O'Hare would permit the Town's engineer to enter his Property to conduct an independent inspection (A6:6). She also requested backup information to support Mr. Lunn's certification. (Id.) Mr. O'Hare refused both requests. (Id.) Counsel for Mr. O'Hare acknowledged at the hearing that it is possible to get a variety of interpretations from engineers regarding the ability of a structure to support a particular type of roof (A-6:8). At the April 13, 2012 hearing, a motion was made that if Mr. O'Hare allowed the Town's engineer to inspect the Property and there was a conflict between the certifications of Mr. Lunn and the Town's engineer, then the two engineers would select a third engineer for a resolution (A-6:9; A-7:2). Again, Mr. O'Hare's counsel communicated that Mr. O'Hare would not allow another engineer to inspect the Property (A-7:2). The April 13, 2012 hearing was continued on May 11, 2012 (A-7:2). Neither Mr. O'Hare nor Mr. Lunn were made available at the May 11, 2012 hearing (A-7:6). The Town was given no opportunity to question them regarding Mr. Lunn's certification or to test the accuracy of the statements being made by 5 Mr. O'Hare's counsel on Mr. O'Hare's behalf (Id.). The Board orally denied Mr. O'Hare's appeal at the May 11, 2012 hearing (A-7:8). On May 20, 2012, the Board issued its Notice of Final Action denying Mr. O'Hare's appeal and sustaining "the opinion of the Building Official that a variance is required in that the applicant has not satisfied that portion of the Code which provides an exception to allow a metal roof because you have not allowed the Town to verity the engineering report you submitted, with regard to the strength of the structure" (A-8). Mr. O'Hare filed a petition for certiorari seeking review and amended his petition to include an appendix. II. ARGUMENT CERTIORARI MUST BE DENIED WHERE THE TOWN ACCORDED DUE PROCESS AND THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW, AND ITS FINDING THAT MR. O'HARE DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A METAL ROOF IS SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE RECORD REFLECTS MR. O'HARE REFUSED THE TOWN AN OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY HIS ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION. This Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari because the Town afforded Mr. O'Hare due process, observed the essential requirements of law, and its judgment that Mr. O'Hare did not satisfY an exception in the Code to allow a metal roof because Mr. O'Hare refused the Town the opportunity to verity his 6 engineering certification was supported by competent, substantial evidence. See, M_,, Broward County, 787 So. 2d at 843; Haines City, 658 So. 2d at 530. A. The Town Properly Exercised its Discretion in Finding Mr. O'Hare Did Not Fall within the Exception to Allow Metal Roofs and Is Entitled to Deference. The Town's interpretation of its own ordinance is entitled to deference. See Donovan v. Okaloosa County, 82 So. 3d 801, 807 (Fla. 2012) (citing Verizon Fla., Inc. v. Jacobs, 810 So. 2d 906, 908 (Fla. 2002) (stating that courts ordinarily defer to a governmental body's interpretation of a statute or rule unless the interpretation conflicts with the plain and ordinary meaning of the provision); Colonade Medical Center, Inc. v. State Agency for Health Care Admin., 847 So. 2d 540, 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) ("It is a well-established maxim that an agency's interpretation of its own rules and regulations is entitled to considerable deference."). Here, the plain language of the ordinance supports the Town's exercise of its discretion to deny Mr. O'Hare's request to install a metal roof. The parties agree that the controlling ordinance is § 70-187(2) ofthe Code (A-2). The Code generally prohibits metal roofs. However, footnote 1 of § 70187(2) contains the following language: Certain metal roofs determined by the town to be appropriate to the structure and to the neighborhood may 7 be approved only in instances of re-roofing of existing structures based upon an engineer's certification that the existing structure will not support a tile roof. The word "may" is crucial to the analysis of this case. A basic rule in constructing statutes or ordinances is that words are to be given their plain meaning. Canal Ins. Co. v. Giesenschlag, 454 So. 2d 88, 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The plain meaning of the ordinance grants the Town discretion to approve or not approve a metal roof. The ordinance's permissive language places the Town under no obligation to approve a metal roof, even if the homeowner provides an engineer's certification. And even in instances of approval, the Town reserves the right to determine the type of metal roof to be installed by the homeowner. Here, Mr. O'Hare initially requested a permit for a concrete tile roof (A-1). Three months later, Mr. O'Hare's contractor requested a change to the permit application, this time to apply for a metal roof (AA-1). Mr. O'Hare's engineer, Mr. Lunn, then provided a certification stating, "I certifY to the best of my knowledge, belief, and professional judgment that the referenced roof framing will not support a tile roof' (A-3). The subject Property has supported a concrete tile rooffor forty (40) years (A-6:6, 7, 8). Given the Property's history of being supported by a concrete tile roof and the certification's language leaving room for a different opinion, the Town decided 8 it wanted its engineer to inspect the Property before exercising its discretion in favor of allowing the metal roof (A-6:5, 6; A-7:6). If the opinion of the Town's engineer conflicted with that of Mr. Lunn, the Town proposed that the two engineers could choose a third engineer for resolution (A-6:9; A-7:2). The Town also requested backup for Mr. O'Hare's certification (A-6:6). Not only did Mr. O'Hare refuse to allow the Town's engineer to inspect the Property, he also refused to produce backup information for the certification (Id.) No one disputes that Mr. O'Hare was given ample notice of the hearings. He voluntarily chose not to appear and testify at either hearing and decided not to produce his engineer for questioning (A-7:6). The Town observed the essential requirements of the law in exercising its discretion within the plain meaning of its ordinance. Lastly, competent substantial evidence supports the Town's denial of Mr. O'Hare's request because the only evidence Mr. O'Hare presented to the Town for its consideration of approval of a metal roof was a letter from Mr. Lunn stating that to the best of his knowledge, belief, and professional judgment, the Property could not support a metal roof. Mr. O'Hare provided no supporting documentation for the letter, failed to produce his engineer for questioning, and refused to allow the Town's engineer to inspect the Property. On the record, the Town Attorney verified Mr. O'Hare's repeated refusals through questioning Mr. 9 O'Hare's counsel at the May 11, 2012 hearing (A-7:3-7). Under these circumstances, it was entirely reasonable for the Town to exercise its discretion under§ 70-187(2) of the Code and deny Mr. O'Hare's request to install a metal roof. Assuming, arguendo, that Mr. O'Hare's interpretation of the ordinance is permissible (which it is not), that is, the Town must accept Mr. Lunn's certification at face value and allow Mr. O'Hare to install a metal roof, the Court should still find in favor of the Town because its interpretation is certainly permissible and reasonable. In State v. Sun Gardens Citrus, LLP, 780 So. 2d 922, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), the Florida appellate court examined a United States Supreme Court decision which addressed a court's review of an agency's interpretation of a statute where more than one permissible interpretation existed. The court explained: [I]f the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute . . . The court need not conclude that the agency construction was the only one it permissively could have adopted to uphold the construction, or even the reading the court would have reached if the question initially had arisen in a judicial proceeding. Sun Gardens Citrus, 780 So. 2d at 925 (citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844-45 (1984). Under Chevron, 10 once a court determines that the legislature has not directly addressed the issue, the only question is whether the agency's interpretation of its own rule is a reasonable one. Id. "If an agency's interpretation of its own regulation is merely one of several reasonable alternatives, it must stand even though it may not appear as reasonable as some other alternative." Id. The rules of construction used to interpret state statutes are also used to interpret local ordinances. Smith v. State, 75 So. 3d 800, 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Here, the ordinance's key word-"may"-justifies the Town's reasonable denial of Mr. O'Hare's request to install a metal roof under the circumstances. The ordinance placed no obligation on the Town one way or the other to approve Mr. O'Hare's request for a metal roof. The Town should ensure that a metal roof is absolutely necessary because metal roofs are generally prohibited by the Code. Indeed, Mr. O'Hare concedes "Gulf Stream's right to be biased against metal roofs" (Am. Pet. at 13). In his amended petition, Mr. O'Hare argues that Woodley presents facts similar to the instant case (Am. Pet. at 9). However, Woodley is clearly distinguishable because the rule in Woodley imposed a mandatory obligation on the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("Department") to take an 11 action which it failed to take. By contrast, the instant ordinance imposes no mandatory obligations on the Town. In the case Mr. O'Hare relies upon, Woodley applied for Aid to Families with Dependent Children ("AFDC") benefits. Woodley v. Dept. of Health and Rehab. Servs., 505 So. 2d 676, 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). At an initial interview, Woodley was asked to provide verification that she had applied for workers' compensation benefits by a certain date. Id. Despite multiple efforts to speak with her employer, the employer failed to provide this verification. Id. Woodley contacted the Department eligibility specialist on more than one occasion to inform her that Woodley was unable to obtain verification from her employer. Id. The eligibility specialist told Woodley to keep trying and to request an extension of time if she could not obtain the verification. Id. Woodley did not furnish the employer verification or request an extension of time, and the Department denied her application. Id. A Department rule provided as follows: If documentation or verification is not provided within the time limits allowed, the assistance group must be determined ineligible for assistance. However, if the employed person reports to the eligibility specialist prior to the deadline date that he/she is unable to secure required documentation or verification, a policy 12 exemption request will be submitted to the District Economic Services Program offices for a decision. Id. at 678. The eligibility specialist never requested a policy exception. The Woodley court explained that the rule "unequivocally requires" the eligibility specialist to request a policy exception under the circumstances presented. Id. Accordingly, it reversed the denial of AFDC benefits. Id. Here, the ordinance provides that certain metal roofs "may" be approved by the Town. It is devoid of mandatory language. Therefore, Woodley is distinguishable, and the Town properly exercised its discretion under the circumstances. Mr. O'Hare also contends that "questions of reliability and/or verification of the Certification were not issues to be considered in the Appeal" (Am. Pet. at 10). This statement ignores the plain meaning of the ordinance granting the Town discretion to approve or not approve a metal roof-an exception to the Town's general prohibition against metal roofs. Because the Town has discretion, it is entirely reasonable for the Town to verifY Mr. O'Hare's engineer certification, especially given that the structure has supported a concrete tile roof for forty ( 40) years (A-6:6, 7, 8). In other words, the Town's reasonable request to verifY the certification emanates from the discretion the ordinance grants it. The two go hand 13 in hand. It follows logically that the issue of verifying the certification was discussed at both hearings (A-6:5-9; A-7:2-8). To say that verification of the certification was not an issue before the Board is simply incorrect. The Town accorded procedural due process to Mr. O'Hare at both hearings at which he chose not to appear personally, but to send his counsel only, and not to produce his engineer. The Town observed the essential requirements of the law in exercising its judgment and discretion within the plain, permissive meaning of the ordinance. The Town Attorney questioned Mr. O'Hare's counsel on the record and confirmed the following refusals by Mr. O'Hare: (1) to produce backup information for his engineer's report; (2) to appear personally at the hearings; (3) to produce his engineer at the hearings; and (4) to allow the Town's engineer to inspect the Property, with the Town's engineer and Mr. Lunn selecting a third engineer to inspect the Property and render an opinion for resolution in case of conflict. Therefore, substantial, competent evidence supports the Town's exercise of its discretion in finding that Mr. O'Hare did not fall within the exception in footnote 1 of § 70-187(2) and requiring him to apply for a variance to install a metal roof. This Court should deny certiorari. 14 III. CONCLUSION This Court should deny Mr. O'Hare's amended petition for writ of certiorari. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by email and United States mail to JOHN E. CARTER, Esquire, 102 N.E. 2nd Street, Suite 179, Boca Raton, Florida 33432-3908 Qohn@carterlawfirm.us); and to LOUIS ROEDER, Esquire, 7414 Sparkling Lake Road, Orlando, Florida 32819 (Iou@louroeder.com), this ~'-th day of October, 2012. Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys for Town of Gulf Stream 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 Post Office Box 3475 West Palm Beach, FL 33402-3475 Telephone: (561) 659-3000 Facsimile: (561) 650-5300 ' c 0 1Jf;1) By;, ' ! (JJ)V4Y'(afP JOC:Randolph Florida Bar No. 129000 jrandolph@jonesfoster.com Stephanie Eassa Rapp Florida Bar No. 0060319 srapp@jonesfoster.com CERTIFICATE OF FONT Respondent's Response to Amended Petition for Writ of Certiorari has been typed using 14-point Times New Roman ~on~- • ,· C' (,fV A .••• By. '-~Jl.1U/ dMl\~ p:\docs\1314 7100009\pld\1 ek23 77 .docx 15 Step arne Eassa Rapp Florida Bar No. 0060319 Document City of Delray Beach Revision Request Town of Gulf Stream's Notice of Application for Appeal of Final Action of Planning and Building Administrator Transmission Report Confirmations of Agenda for April13, 2012 Hearing Sent to Mr. O'Hare and Attorney Roeder Transmission Report Confirmations of Agenda for May 11, 2012 Continued Hearing Sent to Mr. O'Hare and Attorney Roeder TabAA 1 2 3 4 1 Date-: CITY OF D~iC~~t~EACH REVISION REQUEST l ADDED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR THIS CHANGE: EXPl.~IN REVISION:. { ).(~J_ik!tfS io Ckcc{( C'\ii'_ l?J () $,,;ns-o JD l~tx:bf r-ooJ2. ---------------- ---------------·-···-- -~~NOTE: To avoid delay, the revision needs to be clear on the (2) drawings submitted. The Plan Reviewers may need the job site plans, ROUTING: f'A'IH Q!<EL APPROVED BYLQATE: ---------.-----PLAN REVIEWER: _______ _ DATE: _________ _ OFFICE USE ONLY FEE$: REVISION FEEl: $ ___________________ _ ADDED VALUE PERMIT fEE: OTHER FEES AS APP~ICABLE: Parks~ $:__ ___ _ Public Bldg•. $ ____ _ Schools $ ___ _ R03d $ ________ _ R•don $-------OPR$ _________ _ Others _______ _ TO'fAL F"~S DUE: $ _______ _ Rvod 8110 2 561-737-0188 Line 1 10:00:24 a.m. 10-05-2012 NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINAL ACTION OF PLANNING & BUILDING ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Commission, sitting as the Board of Adjustment of the Town of Gulf Stream, will hold a Public Hearing on Friday, April 13, 2012 at 9:00 A.M. in the Commission Chambers of the Town Hall, 100 Sea Road, Gulf Stream, Florida, at which the following will be considered: An application submitted by Christopher F. O'Hare, owner of property located at 2520 Avenue Au Soleil, legally described as Lot 36 Place Au Soleil Subdivision, Gulf Stream, Florida, for the following: APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION to deny the installation of a metal roof until such time as a variance to permit such material has been applied for and approved for the dwelling at the location stated herein. The Town Commission, sitting as the Board of Adjustment, shall make a final decision regarding the subject application at the meeting noticed above. The meeting may be adjourned from time to time and place to place as may be necessary to hear all parties and evidence. The complete application materials are on file in the Office of the Town Clerk located at 100 Sea Road, Gulf Stream, Florida 33483, and may be reviewed during regular business hours, which generally include non-holiday weekdays from 9:00A.M. to 4:00P.M. ALL PARTIES INTERESTED IN THESE MATTERS may appear before the Town Commission of the Town of Gulf Stream at the time and place aforesaid and be heard. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE TOWN COMMISSION, SITTING AS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. Dated: March 30, 2012 TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA 2/6 3 Datelflme Locai!D 1 04-09-2012 561-737-0188 12:13:33p.m. Transmission Report Transmit Header Text Local Name 1 This document : Confirmed (reduced sample and details below) Document size: 8.5"x14" Line 1 ~""'X0\!1 OJ .... ~ •N til! IIFNh'l;;:a!{ti&-01$!'11i!:R.~ ·=:~vonclde .:moJ1 Ol PiQ-'IllWl: ~:!{.:UIIJI;;( tl:l'nll 31;1 ,(de:~, V S'f \'a!:lb't;)U;t OSty ·not 't! rp:av uo !.iuna'ill'i ~O'f&ll1~ :aq:~. .:ZO;j: tpml&'rJ' "'tn j:O l!l'O:I 'i' P~tt(O'II:O~il Ptll'1 Oll~'[cl d.YSVol'{lb}fO JM!Alr;[JII!),VOcJ:c lM-D J.LI::II!Jo. Cl~~'}(lVO !~'f.N.:im; tati)-LEL~f9S !.aUOlf.f Z:"S' 9UHL'N9~ !lll:ti)lfd' ~ .i'Ul~ ao R.N~ >~:rJ:U lL\1011"4; s ~~111~:ilqpiqllllfwiliii.)Ill3~ tF6~T :&)IQ:1 •• Total Pages Confirm•~ : 5 :OtriO"'SS~ :atunrd X8J1' :illlMI.t 1 a~,o •;JR "'''~""X\'f31 Remote Station Start Time I Duration 5615860845 Abbreviations: HS: Host sen~ HR: Host receive WS: Waiting send 12:08:45 p.m. 04-09-2012 I 00'.04:20 PL: Poll~ local PR: Polled remote MS: Mallboxsave MP: Mailbox print RP: Report FF: Fax Forward 9/v lLOl-SO-OL ·u . .reg£!LQ!OL CP: Complet~ FA: Fail TU: Terminated by user Job Type Results HS CP9600 TS: Terminated by system G3: Group3 EC: Error Correct L aun BBLO-LEL-L9S Date/Time LocaiiD 1 04-09-2012 561-737-0188 12:21:4Sp.m. Transmission Report Transmit Header Text Local Name 1 This document : Confirmed (reduced sample and details below) Document size: 8.5"x14" Line 1 l;lfOIJ<(Xtil ,, x-oN ~A :(lvf'i,{qoi\OtLO.!li)U[IlllJSPO • UOi:t.l!O'H'd0:\1' ~:tl!HyO "lf.l ~ 'pa:J.'I!'T;a:r B:>f-'"l!IW.Z :J)~' ,;o Adot> "' ~ l)i1!10tDtm otw •noz '£'t n;~dy uo »unaaw ~T'5Gl\ll!UO;) l)lf.l. ~o; l!J?llllblt &lf.l. )O Moo lll! 'P~tfP~~~~ iUt:f ~'til dYSV ~"II q ~I'IU'.II.IO,{..D.llf 0 1.\d: 0 1'!»8.rll Q P'lllJ'Inf!Q1l_l'f Cr lSlnlYW:m w~~~-~ ~·Gql~¥4 ~I:INL'N9S :an(ll{c[ liifmr.n; .i'Im~ JJO &llo.t ""' IJ\.lQ\U, S ~t(U~A.o.:t ~Tip<q ~~d'p~~ ti-6-'1' :a,•aJ •• Total Pages Confirmed : 5 0$09-0U-s~s :ttuoq,J: ;U,[j :aaol{il ;~:<~paQH: V:q~y II), • ...,,.,_,XV .:II Remote Station Start Time I Duraflon Pages Line 18666106090 Abbreviations: HS: Host send HR: Host receive ws: Waiting send 12:14:52 p.m.04-09-2012 100:03:17 PL: Polled local PR: Polled remote MS: Mailbox save MP: Mailbox print RP: Report FF: Fax Forward 9/ E z~oz-so-o~ ·w·e o~ :~o:o~ 5/5 CP: Completed FA: Fall TU: Termlnaterl by user Mode G3 Job Type HS TS: Terminated by system G3: Group3 EC: Error Correct L aun BB~O-LEL-~95 4 561-737-0188 Date/Time LocaiiD 1 Abbreviations: HS: Host send HR: Host receive WS: Waiting send Line 1 10:02:03 a.m. Transmission Report 05-04-2012 12:31:37 p.m. Transmit Header Text 561-737-0188 '"'""' local Name 1 This document: Confirmed (reduced sample and details below} Document size: 8.5"x14" Po•~ll"~fi<* 1871 •. Line 1 -· 'A? ·r. William I!', RQI;:h, ..rr """ 8l.~bff"/. i-r VlCE ~01<.: ~~~~~~~~~~~·-~~~ .::o= K. Orthwein Joforiel J, Andt.:-llt!l'l - ~·----.. -----CO!WISSIONER 1 l.'t"Eld ». Dl!r¥-il:t III tl. Garref;:t Deri"ng iUlCOt.lllt l>IEET.mG liND l'UBt.iiC HllAR:rnG llaiNG li8LO liY 'l':!m TOWN cmHcSSION OF Tllll 'I'O\IW OF GULF ~ ON nttw\.Y, KU 11, 2(1~ A'r !hOO A.V. !N '11!t ~S.tON C/!iUfimi!S 01" THE roWN HALt, 100 ST:!A !'.!!P,O, Ql,)t.ll' S'l'IlXtM, FUIRIDA, t. e;.ll to O::de!:. u;. Pl~$ o.e AJ.l~llllce, n:r. Rol~ t'~l. rv. MiJJUtes of th!i 1lenu1~ V.~til:lg of 4~13~!~v. Addit.irul.ijl, withd.r¢Wal.OJ, dafer.tl!.ls, &r.rtmge.ent Qf agenda ite111s. Vl' • Nm<mroQmMUi • A, Regular !«aoltings >'In:\ i'tlblic lleillt:lr.!]l! l,, .,UI\0 ~5, 20l2 8 9 A.M. :0!, July 13, 2012 1!- !J A.M. 3. Auqul!lt 10, 20U !) !I A.M. 4., S:eptelllbe:r 14, 2012 9 9 A.M . .5. October 12, 2tlU @ S k.M. Vll, POJJUIC ~ of ~J>JU) Ol< ~ (Conti:nu~>tl !:cC>Jn 4-l3-l.2) A.. Appe~l !',inal ~ction of Ph.n~tl9 & IU(Ig. Administrator 1, l\n IIPP1icatit'l.1 autmdtteQ by Christophel: o•Raro!l, o~r. of pr.oparty lt;cate.d o.t .li.S:i.O AVe!1\IB Au sole.l.l, laglllly descrihl!(l at. Lot :J~1 Pl;;~e AU Soleil Subdivision, <lul:l! Str411'1~, Floddll, tor t.'le folloorlii!P a. ~al nf MJJ.:nistntivt! Owb:ton. to deny the ill.!ltalhtl.on of a n~et:al J:oot until ,;~ til'le All a va:dan.coi to -permit .!lueh m~tt:ode.l bu "bi'>Cll I!Wlied ror IIWi ~d fOX' tlle dval,litt!; o~t the 19catiu:1 stated 1l1!U1J1. VIli. Items Rda.!:Gd to Pr~vJ.<:<u~a AJjlptW!Il.!l. },, CUIX.(I¢1 of roof dle at 554 Palm ~ aul:lDitted by Mark Mal'sJl e.s Agent fo:z: Mr. 1:< HZ"$. J~ l)avia :rx, n~¢>rtG, A. Utility 11:a(jer:goroundil'l9" IJP.;It~~·Danny n=or.. [engineer) e, '1own Mtu:t.'l!l•r 1, Bpdo.te on conditions & l'rogreu~s at l220 N, OCill!U\. Blvd. c. Arebitectura1 lleview $o Plannin\l ~<:1 l. b!eetinq D&tes a. MllY U. 7.~12 0- 8!30 A.!'!, b, <1\l~e 281 :!:(!1-;l: ll 813(! A,X, c. uuly .Zii, .201.:1 &. a~3o A.M. d, NO AU9'\lSt M8etil1g, e. .Se.J.ll:embar 21, 20U at 8tJO J...!l. 2. ~ll11in(l'ID~W.elopcnent. Code J...maul)lle:n!: .Reco.'#lle:rtdtttiomll o. l!'.it:u~nce nirector 1. C!Jlh &. J!udgQI: Report Eo:z: April 2012 E, Poliee Cbief" l. Ac:tivicy ~or April ~012 Total Pages Confirmed: 2 StartTime Duration 12:29:24 p.m. 05-04-201Z 00:01:47 Pages 212 uno PL: Polled local PR: Polled remote MS: Mailbox save MP: Mailbox print RP: Report FF: Fax Forward CP: Completed FA: Fall TU: Terminated by user 10-05-2012 5/6 TS: Terminated by system G3: Group3 EC: Error Correct 561-737-0188 Date/Time Locai!D I Abbreviqtlons: HS: Host send HR: Host receive WS: Waiting send Line 1 10:02:39a.m. 05-04-2012 561-737-0188 Transmission Report 12:28:18p.m. Transmit Header Text l!J\¥0R; Local Name 1 This document : Confirmed (reduced sample and details below} Document size: 8.5"x14" Line 1 'VlCB lfA'fOR1 ca!OOSSIONJ!R; Will.lll!ll 1!', 'Koch, Jr Joan. JC orthwain Muriel 11. M<let~?T.I Jlt:lld B. Devitt III w. Garrett D~ill9 k!Kr.lt.AA ME:ET~ JIND PVBLD:! ~MUNG .l'llmiG :ru,;r.p B\' 1.'lit 'l'OI:IN COMMI~ON OF. 'r.HE 'l'OWN OJ' Gm.F S'l'IIIlliM ON J'llnD.Y~ HAY )J., .. 012 OW 9-:00 A.ll. ' m <n£E c<lMMl::SSICW CPJU.DU!RS OF THE 'f'OWN 8!Ar.1.. 100 Sl!A RC00)1 Gll'13 S'J!IU!AN, F.LORIOA, I, Call. to OrOer. II. U«<ga. ~f lillcgianoe-. II!., Roll e...ll, tv. Minnte.e o£ ~~ tteyu).l!l:' Meetlr1g- ol: 4~13•12. v. Alkliti=, w.lt.lul~ls, dllferral.l;\, or:.:-~9~t of a17enda items. V'1.. 1\rtoQUI\~lnenes:. A. Jl.(!g-u!a;r l!~tir..g,;: ;md l'llblic Ele<t:itl,!ls l, ol'I>,UEI 15 1 2.0!2 8 9 ll.,.lol., 2, Ji.tly 13, Ull2 4 9 A.M. J, ~9"J.St 1(\, 41012 U !il A,M, 4. SWte~llber 14, 2012 I! g A.M. 5. [)Ctober ll, 2012 8 9 A.M. Vll. l'tlaMtc HI'ARXNI.'l of scwm Ol" AnJOS'112NT ICcll.thrua"- trw. 4pl3··12J A. }\,ppeal Pin!ll Aetion of r~e.tll').i.ng Jo Bldg-. Adrninis.tntor 1. An ~plit-a.tiQll submitted i:ly Chr.i11topller O'ttlin, l>lm~ of l!r()perty l~>rlltad at 2540 AU"enue AU S~l~l. h{f~ly des ~:!rib~ at. LOt 31i ,t>~;u::e AU Sol..eil Sl.lbdivisiou, Gl!l.f 8tr<M.ln, FloriCla, for the t:ollorling, a. J>.ppeal of Mll:tnisb:'al;i~~t~ I'OCl:sign to der...y the msti!LllatiM:Io ()f a aer.a.l roof uati:!. .such time a~ a va.tian~;:t~o to pe.mi.t such 11\tlterl«tl lui:; l;leeu 4>l)l.iC!d for and allprovod fot tha t!wtilling i\t tbe locl.tlon stat~ hnreln. v:x:rr. 'It.eRis ttelated tn :l'X'~v.lous ~.W:<:OW1D, A, Ch~tl9'~ ot ;,coot tl.le at 554. l'l!lm t~l!l.V ;suMLtt~ W Mlu:k Harsll iUI ,Meot. for Mr. k Mrs, ol'twte& O.W.I.>l lX. I!epol:t!11. A. Ut1.l.it:y Und~grouadtllo ti!)data-.OaJillY l!rM~~cu {engin~::l a. fO\o'n Mi!.tlllga:(' 1. \l£)o&lta on con.ditiOI!$ r. P.t;ogre.&s: at 121;(1 N. oa~ 3lvd. c. .Arcllitect~t'al t\eviPW .t. :Plan.uinQ Boa:rtl 1. :'o!eeti.ng Dates e.. May i!4, 2012 a B:la A.M • .b • .June 2B, jQ12 II 11:10 A.M, c. July 21i, 2012 Q 8:30 A.ll. tl, No A\l.91lllt Me.eting. e. $epeeubor 21, 2!lU at. a.Jo: A.K • .2. U3niug/DevelC~P~Jet:~t Coder iWelldM:nt ~~tiona o. l"iJW.oce- Direlltcr l. ~ ~ l'i!U\i(t~t P.el)ort fet!l:' llpril 21112 ~. Nol:i.C<il ('hi~f l, Activity f~ Ap~l :1:012 Total Pages Confirmed: 2 Start Time Duration 12:26:55 p.m. 05-04-2012 00:01:03 MP: Mailbox print RP: Report Pages Line 2/2 CP: Completed FA: Fall Mode G3 PL: Polled local PR: Polled remote MS: Mailbox save FF: Fax Forward TU: Terminated by user 10-05-2012 6/6 Ts: Terminated by system G3: Group3 EC: Error Correct Tab 12 .PDF 1FN513~1.PDF 1FN5132-petitioner appendix.PDF application/pdf attachment EnUs 1FN8623-motion leave file amended petition and appendix.PDF .PDF 1FN862~1.PDF 1FN8623-motion leave file amended petition and appendix.PDF application/pdf attachment EnUs 1FN8809-petition writ certiorari.PDF .PDF 1FN880~1.PDF 1FN8809-petition writ certiorari.PDF application/pdf attachment EnUsBill, Please see the attached Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by O’Hare in which he asks the 4th District Court of Appeal to overturn the decision of the Circuit Court. We will follow up accordingly with our representation of the Town. JOHN C. RANDOLPH John C. Randolph Attorney Direct Dial: 561.650.0458 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | HYPERLINK "mailto:jrandolph@jonesfoster.com"jrandolph@jonesfoster.com Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | HYPERLINK "http://www.jonesfoster.com/"www.jonesfoster.com U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.