HomeMy Public PortalAbout1998-09-15 Council Executive Session - AP Bal Harbour Club and AVA Developments CASE 98-026VILLAGE OF BAL HARBOUR
COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION
655 96th Street
Bal Harbour, Florida
Tuesday, September 1 5, 1998
2:00 o'clock p.m.
PERSONAL TOUCH REPORT I NG, INC .
13899 Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Flori da 33181
305-944-9884
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
ESTELLE SPIEGEL, Mayor
ANDREW R. HIRSCHL, Assistant Mayor
JAMES E. BOGGESS, Councilman
DANIELS. TANTLEFF, Councilman
PEG E. GORSON, Councilwoman
ALFRED J. TREPPEDA, VILLAGE MANAGER
RICHARD J. WEISS, ESQ. and
STEVEN HELFMAN, ESQ.
Village Attorneys
JEANETTE HORTON, Village Clerk
PERSONAL TOUCH REPORTING, INC.
13899 Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33181
305-944-9884
2
1 (Thereupon, the following
2 proceedings were had:)
3 MAYOR SPIEGEL: We are going to call
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this meeting to order.
Hirschl?
We will go into roll call.
MS. HORTON: Mayor Spiegel?
MAYOR SPIEGEL: Here.
MS. HORTON: Assistant Mayor
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: Present.
MS. HORTON: Councilman Boggess?
COUNCILMAN BOGGESS: Here .
MS. HORTON: Councilman Tantleff?
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: Here.
MS. HORTON: Councilwoman Gorson?
COUNCILWO MAN GORSON: Here.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: We are now going to
have an attorney-client session in accordance
with Florida Statute 286.011.
The session is estimated to last one
hour.
The following people will be in
attendance at this meeting:
Myself and the Village Council
members, the Village attorneys, Richard J.
3
4
1 Weiss and Steve Helfman, and our Village
2 Manager, Alfred Treppeda.
3 These proceedings will be recorded
4 by a certified court reporter.
5 At the conclusion of all litigation
6 discussed, the transcript will be made part of
7 the public record.
8 All those individuals who I have not
9 named should leave the room at this time.
10 (Thereupon, Village Clerk Jeanette
11 Horton was excused from the hearing room.)
12 MAYOR SPIEGEL: This meeting is
13 called to order .
14 MR. WEISS: Just to start off --and
15 then I will turn it over to Steve.
16 While we were on summer recess, we
17 received the opinion from the Appellate Court.
18 I have spoken to all of you about it.
19 Basically, it says that the evidence
20 that was presented to the Council by the
21 objectors was not sufficient to uphold the
22 Council's decision.
23 What we have done is to --in the
24 absence of having an Executive Session, we
25 have done what was necessary in order to
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
preserve the Council's position so that you
wouldn't be prejudiced, which involved filing
a motion for rehearing, which is still pending
with the court. We have had no decision.
The only twist to the motion for
rehearing was that in the interim a very good
case came out of the Appellate Court, the
Third District Court of Appeal, which looks
favorably upon testimony from neighbors.
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: Could I give a
copy of that out? I brought a copy.
MR. WEISS: Sure.
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: What I am
referring to is Metropolitan Dade versus Weyco
(phonetic) Commercial.
MR. WEISS: Normally, a motion for
rehearing is sort of somewhat of a rehashing
of the same thing. But we were able to
include this additional case, which might be
of assistance to us.
We are hopeful that the Appellate
Division of the Circuit Court that heard this
first will look at this case and reevaluate
what they did. But we think that is fairly
unlikely.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The next step then, with Council
authorization, would be to file an appeal to
the Third District Court of Appeal.
That is the current status of the
matter.
The purpose of the Executive Session
is to bring you up to date and have you ask
any questions that you have about where we
are, what might happen, et cetera, and to
confirm authorization from you for us to move
ahead and to take the appeal and to continue
to try to uphold the Council's decision on
this.
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: Could I ask a
couple of questions?
MR. HELFMAN: Before you do that,
let me say that there is an important aspect
to this discussion, which is that I have been
approached by two different lawyers that
represent AVA about the possibility of
settling this matter.
So that issue is an important issue.
6
It should be discussed. We should address it.
You may not have any interest in the
matter, but these proceedings are appropriate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for that discussion.
I will tell you that there is a
lawyer by the name of Michael Handsman who
represents AVA, who is not handling the
appeal, but has been hired by them to handle
their corporate matters, as well as a
potential lawsuit against the City if they
feel that they have been damaged as a result
of being denied the zoning.
I also had a meeting with Cliff
Shulman unrelated to your matter, but at that
luncheon which I had with him recently, he
raised the possibility of some resolution to
this thing, some settlement to it.
7
They didn't offer anything, although
Handsman said that maybe we could make some
agreement where the other property that AVA
has contracted to buy or will own if the whole
club process is accomplished, which is the bay
side property, that they might agree not to do
development on that site or to have minimal
development on that site on the bay side.
I throw that out in no degree of
order or importance, but just to tell you that
that is the only other item which is properly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
the subject of discussion here that you should
be aware of.
Whether we want to pursue it or not
--I assume that they were serious in raising
it, but I don't know how serious they are
about it.
MR. WEISS: The other thing I would
like to mention before you start talking about
things is that --just to remember that
although this is exempt from the Public
Records Law and the Sunshine Law at this
point, when th is litigation is concluded, this
will be made public. So bear t hat in mind
with respect to any comments that you make.
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: Did you want
to begin with the questions that I have?
MAYOR SPIEGEL: Does the Council
have questions?
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: Sure.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: Go ahead .
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: Just to
clarify what the Court ruled --basically, for
clarification.
MR. WEISS: For clarification, what
the Court ruled was that there was not
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sufficient evidence on the record put on by
and I discussed this with all of you --that
there was not sufficient evidence on the
record to uphold the Council's decision in
denying this request for rezoning.
Again, remember that the standard is
that once they show that it is in compliance
with the comprehensive p lan and they have met
procedural requirements, the burden then
shifts in this case to the neighbors to show
that the requested rezoning would not serve
the public interest.
What the Court ruled, basically, is
that based upon the testimony that was
presented by the neighbors, the Court didn't
feel like there was enough evidence placed on
the record by the neighbors to uphold the
decision that the Council made.
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: What was the
Court's ruling? They disagreed with us, but
what does that mean?
MR. HELFMAN: It means that if you
decided to accept that decision, that the
direction is that the matter is remanded back
to the Council to take action consistent with
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
their decision.
Typically, what that means is to
conduct a hearing and to grant the rezoning.
But that is not necessarily what it means.
10
If you chose not to take an appeal,
for example, and you wanted to go back and
just implement what you believe the Court was
saying to do, you might hold a full public
hearing and take testimony again and to the
extent that the testimony supported a
decision, you might make a different decision
or the same decision.
I am not telling you that that is
not a very aggressive thing to do.
The law is somewhat unclear when you
have a decision like that and t hey remand back
and say , "Make a decision consistent with what
we found."
Generally, what they are telling you
to do is to go back and grant the rezoning.
However, they can't order that. The law is
very clear that a court cannot order you to
rezone property. They can only remand the
matter back to you for consideration
consistent with their opinion.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
I don't know that anybody has ever
tried. We are doing the research.
To go back and hold another hearing
and let everybody be educated by the Court and
conduct a full public hearing with the
evidence that may be appropriate for
supporting a negative decision, taking the
decision as a guideline as opposed to a
mandate to do something, that is conceivable.
The reason we haven't spent much
time exploring that is because that is a
highly unusual way to deal with this case.
The more appropriate way to deal
with it, if you feel that you made the proper
decision, is to appeal this decision to the
District Court of Appeal.
MR. WEISS: The only word I would
change from "appropriate,, is the word
"traditional,, way to deal with it.
MR. HEL FMAN: Okay.
Certainly, much more traditional is
to appeal to the Third District Court of
Appeal and say --and the level of review
there is that the lower Court applied the
wrong law.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
As you go up the scale of courts,
the degree of review gets a little narrower.
12
In this particular instance, the
narrowest doesn't necessarily hurt us, because
what we are saying is that they applied the
wrong law.
Had they recognized that the law
allows neighborhood testimony, supported by
other documentary evidence, to be considered
by the Council in making its decision and that
is proper evidence to make your decision on --
had they applied that law properly, we think
that they would have upheld your decision.
Do you want to explore what the
Court said?
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: If you are
saying that the Court said that the publ ic
input did not support the decision of the
Council
MR. HELFMAN: Yes, did not rise to
the level of substantial competent evidence to
have supported your decision.
To come in and just say, "We don't
like it," is not enough evidence for you all
to say, "Then we don't like it either. Turn
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it down."
It has to rise to a level of more
competent evidence than, ''We just don I t like
it."
13
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: You said
you think they applied the wrong law in making
their decision.
MR. HELFMAN: Yes. Also, I don't
think they understood the evidence that they
had before them.
I think that when you read these
other cases, you realize that the level of
evidence that is necessary to support a
decision like yours is, under the new
decisions, very l ow.
You don't need expert testimony any
longer, where in the past you may have needed
it.
Neighborhood testimony is enough, so
long as it is supported by other matters in
the record that they may bring in.
They may bring in aerial
photographs. They may bring in studi es that
show o v ercrowding. They may bring in
overcrowding of schools.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
If they come in and they say, "You
are going to overcrowd our schools. Look at
these studies," that is enough.
But, "Don't do this to us. It is
out of character with our neighborhood. We
really don't like it," is not quite to the
level, at least in this Court's mind, that
woul d support your decision.
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: If I can make
one comment.
14
This opinion, to show you how on
point it is --just to hear a couple of lines.
It says, "In the instant case"
this is a Dade County Commission denying --
MR. HELFMAN: Denying a site plan
approval.
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: They then lost
in the first round, like we lost, and they
then appealed it to the Third DCA.
MR. HELFMAN: And they lost again.
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: So then when
they went back to the Third DCA, the Third DCA
reversed the lower Court, agreeing with the
County Commission.
MR. HELFMAN: That's correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: It says, "The
Commission examined the use of compatibility.
It properly considered aesthetics, as well as
use. The Commission received the testimony of
several neighbors, who characterized the
project as industrial and stated that the
project would be incompatible with the
surrou nding neighborhoods.
"Specifically, one neighbor stated
that the facility would be an eyesore. He
commented that what was proposed would not fit
with the neighborhood. It's almost like
trying to put an elephant into a Volkswagen."
Basically, I think the Court, for
t h e first time, really considered neighbors'
testimony.
COUNCILMAN BOGGESS: I read that and
I think it's right on point. But we can't get
too optimistic about this because there, they
are talking about a storage facility in a
resident ial neighborhood, and here we are
talking about one more condo in a long row of
condos.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: There is
something interesting here.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
If you interpret what the judicial
panel, the Circuit panel said, they said that
the record does not support the decision.
MR. HELFMAN: Right.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: You told
us that although not traditional, should this
Council want to rehear this entire matter and
whether the public support goes strongly
either way, make a decision.
What is wrong with creating a more
applicable record prior to, in lieu of the
Third District Court of Appeal at this point?
Where is the negativity of doing something
like that?
MR. WEISS: The issue is that we
have hanging out there --it is one thing to
make a zoning decision, have it upheld or not
upheld and we sort of move on from there.
We have hanging out here this whole
issue, which I am not --a situat ion that is
of concern to me as the Village Attorney, is
this whole issue of liability.
The more non-traditional, aggressive
we get in terms of dealing with this issue,
that liability is out there .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
I am not afraid of this but it's a
concern of mine.
Is it taking a non-traditiona l
approach if a Court says, "That's a ridiculous
approach. Nobody in Florida has ever done
that approach," which we believe is the case.
It is a unique approach, but tha t was bad, and
they put that as part o f these little pieces
that they are putting together in terms of
trying to create a case for an intentional
jerking them around. It's just another piece.
So that's the downside of that.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: Why do you
say that it is an intentional jerking around?
MR. HELFMAN: That's what is going
to be their allegation.
MR. WEISS: They are trying to talk
to us about the fact that you know, all the
things that went on in terms of the process
and blah, blah, blah. That is the case they
are putting together.
It is a civil rights violation if
there is an intentional jerking. I don 't
believe there was. But that is the case they
are putting together .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
This is another --
MR. HELFMAN: The straightforward
proper consideration of the zoning hearing,
where you just make a decision.
18
It happens to be the wrong decision.
Some Court said, "You did it wrong."
That's not actionable. Nobody can
sue you for that. There is no right to go
collect damages for that. That's what
government does all day long.
If they apply the wrong rules, the
Court says, "You applied the wrong rules. Go
try it again or reverse your decision."
When the government initiates the
process to affect the rights of parties, as
opposed to an applicant coming in and saying,
"I am here for a zoning hearing. Give me a
fair hearing" --when the government initiates
the effort, now you begin to get in an area
where you need to be careful, because now you
are taking initiative toward dealing with
their property.
I don't think you are suggesting
that. What I think you are suggesting --and
a possibility is that in lieu of or maybe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
together with an appeal I'm not sure that
that is inappropriate. We have to look at it.
We say, "You know what, we want to
be fair to these people, all of them, all of
the participants in this process."
We will advertise a notice of public
hearing and conduct a hearing consistent with
the Court's direction and what we understand
that the Court is saying, and allow everyone
to come forward.
That creates a whole new public
record, a whole new public hearing. We would
have to look very carefully at whether --
I have suggested it and I am talking
to you very openly, like I talk within my
office to people.
I think it's a possibility. We
haven't looked at it because it is very non-
traditional.
Our advice is going to be to move
forward with the traditional appeal so that we
don't in any way risk not taking that action,
where we think we have a decent chance of
success based upon the new law.
I'm not saying you are going to win.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
There are no guarantees. But that kind of
decision is coming out of that Court.
That Court is recognizing that
neighborhood testimony about what they feel is
appropriate and compatible in their own
neighborhood justifies decisions.
These line of cases are beginning to
get more favorable to the neighbors than they
were in the past, literally while we are in
this process that is evolving.
So what we have done is, we have
filed that with the Court and said two things.
Number one, we want you to
reconsider what we did. Number two, we want
you to clarify your ruling in the event that
we want to conduct a new hearing, so that we
preserve that opportunity.
We put in our motion a motion to
clarify. We said, "We want the Court to tell
us what it is that we should have be doing at
the hearing that you want us to do."
We have given them that opportunity
in this motion for clarification.
The last thing we did was file a
separate supplemental authority.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2 3
24
25
21
When this case came out two days
after we filed our motions, we sent this in
and said, "This is further basis for a
rehear i ng by you on this matter, because the
law whi le you have been deliberating thi s has
changed and it's more favorab l e to us."
MR. WEISS: The reason that case is
so significant is because the Court that
issued that opinion is the exact same Court
that is going to look at our case. That is
why it is such an important and favorable case
for us.
It's not a Court out of North
Florida or someplace. It is the Third
District Court of Appeal and they are the ones
who are looking at these things very
favorably. That's why we are encouraged by
that particular decision.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: By going to a higher
Court, an Appeal Court, do the other attorneys
--what is his name? Shubin?
MR. HELFMAN: Absolutely. They
already filed their motions a l so.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: They are going to go
along with --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are.
22
MR. HELFMAN: I understand that they
At first, there was some concern
about whether or not their clients, who were
Doug Rudolph and Berlin and then Dan Paul's
clients were wil l ing to continue to move
forward.
Both of those law firms, Shubin and
Paul, called us and joined in our pleadings
and have told us that they are moving forward
and are going to participate in the appeal.
So that is a good indication that
they are committed to going forward, and they
filed the same motions that we did. They
adopted ours, actually. We filed them and
they just piggy-backed.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: By going this route,
the traditional as you call it, does that
support our decision to go ahead without
getting involved?
We can have litigation for damages
with them, you said. Does that preempt that?
MR. WEISS: No, it doesn't. But
what it does is --by going ahead with the
appeal, there is no liability being created.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Basically, you are asking for the
Court to review the decision of the lower
Court.
23
Incidentally, these are not mutually
exclusive. You can do both of them.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: Do we have liability
now with them?
MR. HELFMAN: We don't think so.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: Can they now sue us
for anything other than
MR. WEISS: Based upon the
information that we have about what went on in
this process, we don't think the Village has
liability.
MR. HELFMAN: Based upon what we
know --and we were here for the proceedings,
there is nothing that occurred during these
proceedings that we feel rises to a level
where they would have an independent action
against you, nothing at all that we have seen.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: By going the
traditional route --
MR. HELFMAN: We don't create any
more liability. We are just saying the Court
did something wrong and we are entitled to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1 4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
t hat.
There are cases on point. There is
a case in South Miami where the City
Commission there --I mean, they really
pounded this guy. They pounded a guy who had
a gymnasium. They beat him up bad.
At the end of the day, he won. He
went to the Third District and he won and he
sued the City and said, "You guys really beat
me up and I am entitled to money ."
The Third District Court of Appeal
said, "No. They went through a zoning
process. They made the wrong decision. They
really made the wrong decision, but that
doesn't give rise for you to sue them for
money damages."
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: Nobody would
run for office anymore. You have to respect
the Commission decision.
MR. HELFMAN: We are not saying
individually. They didn't try to get the
Council members individually, but they tried
to sue the City by saying that through its
Council, they acted improperly.
MR. WEISS: The City can have
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
liability. It would have to be something that
is very egregious that we are not aware of.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: Individually, we are
not either.
MR. HELFMAN: That's correct.
By taking an appeal, you don 1 t
create any more liability than has already
been created if there is any. There is
nothing in this process --by saying, "We
would like to have another Court look at
this," that exposes you to any further
liability.
MR. WEISS: As a matter of fact, by
taking the appeal, you have the ability to
insulate yourself from liability totally,
because if we win the appeal, obviously, you
were right to begin with.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: By taking the appeal
that's why I asked you about the other two
attorneys the neighbors are fully
protected.
MR. HELFMAN: They are participating
in it.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: So we don't have to
go through a terrible uproar, creating more
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
havoc than we already are.
MR. HELFMAN: They want to appeal.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: They want to appeal
and we want to appeal --we don't know, but I
am saying if we want to appeal and they piggy -
back, they are on the appeal and then we go
ahead.
MR. HELFMAN: That's correct.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: Without any
further
MR. HELFMAN: Without giving rise to
any more public hearings.
However, if you want us to look at
that issue where you could run two processes
concurrent with each other, we can look at
that. I don't know that you can do it. I
will probably come back and tell you no, but I
would want to look at it before I said no.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: How much is the
appeal going to run, time element?
MR. HELFMAN: We have written the
first brief, obviously.
You are probably talking about maybe
$25,000 to go through the second level .
COUNCILMAN HIRSCHL: At the Circuit
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
level when you argued on behalf of the City,
you were restricted insofar as you were not
able to introduce anything outside of the
testimony or
MR. WEISS: Right, and the Third
District is the same thing.
COUNCILMAN HIRSCHL: If you go to
appeal
MR. WEISS: Same thing .
COUNCILMAN HIRSCHL: There is
nothing to bring in from the outside?
MR. WEISS: No. What is on the
record is on the record.
27
The only thing that helps us at the
Third District is the way in which what is on
the record is looked at.
In other words, somebody can look at
something and say --look at the neighbors'
testimony, which is what the lower Court did
and say that doesn't mean anything.
We are hopeful that based upon this
case and the Third District in general, that
the Third District is going to look at the
neighbors' same testimony --
MR. HELFMAN: Right, it's the same
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
testimony. They are going to look at it and
say, "That is substantial competent evidence
to support "
MR. WEISS: The argument that we
have is that you should look at it in a
different way.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: Let's go
one step further.
28
In private discussion, I have
discussed with you the fact that I believe
under previous Council, there was manipulation
of the Master Plan, the comprehensive Plan.
That was never brought into
evidence. That was neve r discussed.
I am not an a ttorney, but it s eems
that if that's a germane point to bring into
t h e discussion
MR. WEISS: At this po i nt, in order
to start to get --to talk about evidence
outside of what was already present ed, y o u
hav e t o get into a new proceeding of some
sort.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: I think we
are at a disadvantage going into this appeal.
MR. WEISS: Because that issue
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
wasn't raised.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: I can l ist
ten issues that weren't raised, which I, as a
Councilman, can't raise listening to the
publ ic's input.
MR. WEISS: Right.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: But I
think that the incomplete record, wh ich i s
wha t the Circuit level has decided on --maybe
I am naive, but I don't see how the Third
District level is going to make any
difference. It 1 s the same thing.
MR. HELFMAN: I know why you think
that, but if you look at that decision --
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: This is
apples and oranges. This is a different
situation. This is different than ours,
period.
MR . HELFMAN: It is.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: You can
argue that you have a building , a building, a
space and a building.
We are not putting in a warehouse.
They want to put a high rise. That's
consistent.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. WEISS: The issue here is not
consistency.
30
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: I'm not a
lawyer. I am saying to you that I don't think
the record was as complete as it should have
been.
Whether it was our fault or whether
it's the public's fault or the attorneys'
fault, the facts are that we did encounter
difficulty at the Circuit level.
MR. WEISS: I am sure that Council
voted based upon --
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: On what we
heard.
MR. WEISS: You felt that the record
was sufficient to justify a decision.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: Agreed.
What I am saying to you is that the strength
of that record could have been enhanced,
possibly. I don't know. But that's old news.
MR. HELFMAN: The opponents may have
put on other material, which they didn't
choose to put on. They have remedies if they
think --
If the community believes that the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3 1
comprehensive plan was improperly adopted,
they have remedies available to them to try to
seek redress for that.
MR. WEISS: Also understand that it
is very unusual for a c i ty to challenge its
own comprehensive plan.
MR . HELFMAN: You can't do that.
MR. WEISS: This City adopted its
own comprehensive plan.
What you are saying is t h at you feel
like there may have been some improper
influence in the way that plan was adopted. I
have never heard of a city challenging its own
comprehensive plan.
Basically, that's what you are
talking about.
MR. HELFMAN: You can't . You go
back and amend the comprehensive plan .
MR. WEISS: And change i t .
MR. HELFMAN: To change it. The
problem is tha t then you begin to flirt with
the issues that we are talking about, where
the government is initiating a down planning
of a property owner's property.
That is a risky thing to do .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
However, that is not to say that members of
this community who feel that the comprehensive
plan was improperly adopted, that it was
adopted and that there was prejudice involved
or undue influence involved in the adoption of
it that they are just learning of and that
they just recognized --that is not to say
that they can't challenge this City and file
some type of action to set aside the ordinance
which adopted the comprehensive plan.
We will do what you want for us to
do in defending that action.
MR. WEISS: Actually, as I am
thinking about it, there are also non -judicial
remedies that are available, that could be
available for repealing ordinances.
I am thinking, Steve, of like a
petition.
MR. HELFMAN: Right.
MR. WEISS: There are procedures in
our code and state laws so that if the Council
passes an ordinance and the people don't like
it, they have the ability to collect petitions
and so forth and to repeal that ordinance by
the electorate and, basically, overrule the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
Council.
I don't know if that has ever been
applied to the adoption of a comprehensive
plan.
MR. HELFMAN: There is a law that
says that you can't do zoning by petition.
The other thing, which is the po i nt
that you are making --I don't want it to be
lost --that the further that you get up these
appellate courts, the more difficult it does
get to get a favorable decision.
The point you are making is correct,
which is that they are going to be looking at
the same evidence. We just have to convinc e
them that the law is different and that the
law was improperly applied.
But as you move up, it gets more and
more difficult.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: How many more times
can you move
MR. HELFMAN: One after that, but
it's to the Supreme Court and it's completely
discretionary. They are not going to hear
this case.
MR. WEISS: I think I have told you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this. Like for instance, when we litigated
against actually the same law firm on the
Seaquarium, we started out by losing at the
trial court.
MR. HELFMAN: We won at the Third
District.
MR. WEISS: We won at the Third
District Court of Appeal and we won in the
Supreme Court.
So it does happen.
We lost at the County Commission.
MR. HELFMAN: Right.
MR. WEISS: We lost at the trial
court.
MR. HELFMAN: Yes.
MR. WEISS: We won at the T hird
District and we won in the Florida Supreme
Court.
34
MR. HELFMAN: The record is the
record. We can only let the Court understand
that the lower court is misinterpreting this
record and really doesn 't understand what they
were looking at.
We have had a certain level of
success here, although we lost. I'm not in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
2 5
35
any way saying that is a good result.
There are only two grounds that they
brought the appeal on.
Their first ground and the one that
they opened up their case with and wrote
almost their entire brief on was something
called reverse spot zoning.
They lost that argument entirely.
It's not even mentioned in the decision when
it comes out of the Court.
It was the basis of their whole
challenge.
They opened up their oral argument
and their lawyer stood up in front of the
three judges and said, "This is a case about
reverse spot zoning."
The opinion, two, three pages of it,
doesn't mention reverse spot zoning.
So we have taken out of their
arsenal their biggest and strongest argument,
what they thought was their strongest.
They happened to win on the lesser
of their two arguments.
We now have good law , we think, to
make a good case that their second argument,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
which is the one the Court bought off on, is
weak also.
36
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: Which is what?
MR. HELFMAN: Which is that the
testimony --let me give you what we would
hope the Court would have looked at this as.
We look at your community --you
see, they are trying to paint a picture that
this Council has zoned and allowed the
oceanfront part of this community to be multi-
family development and that somehow they are
the only poor guys just hanging around here
who can't do what this Council has let
everybody else do.
What the Court didn't recognize, we
don't think, and what hopefully the Third
District will recognize, is that you didn't
have anything to do with any of that.
You, nor any prior Council people,
zoned that land for what it is. There was a
developer who created this community. That
developer who took this community is no
different than Arvida or anybody else.
They decided how this community was
going to be built. They decided that there
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3 7
were going to be mu l t i -family sites on the
ocean. They decided there was going to b e two
private club facilities . They mandated t h at
e v e r ybody in the commun i ty b e a member of
thos e f a c ilities .
Th ose faci l i t ies a re lar ge r tha n a ny
o t her lot on the o c eanfr o n t. That s ite wa s
n e ver i ntended by the developer to ever b e a
mult i -family s i te .
It is double the size of all of
them . It is five acres. It has double the
width of every other site there.
What they have attempted to do --
and maybe with this Court successfully --is
to somehow paint the picture that you allowed
al l that to occur and now you won't let them
build on this site.
What the Cour t didn't recognize and
wh at we hope the second Court will recognize
is that you didn't have anything to do with
it, that the club's predecessor, their direct
predecessor, who created the club, is t h e one
t h at set out this regime.
I t is like a dev e l oper coming in and
saying , "Do you know what? Here is my
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
community. I am going to put a golf course in
the middle of it."
Everybody buys around the golf
course. They know that it 's a golf course.
Then the developer says, "I can't make it with
a golf course anymore. I want to build homes
on the golf course. And look, there are homes
there already."
It is ridiculous to think that they
can use the fact that they designed the
community with multi-family, but l eft that as
open space.
To then come back and say that you
did it --you didn't have anything to do with
it.
It goes to sort of the spot zoning
argument, which you were successful on. They
kept on saying, "This City has done all of
this and now they are leaving us out."
We said to the Court, "That's
ridiculous. We didn't do that. This
government didn't create their problem. They
created their problem."
The developer of Bal Harbour created
their probl em, not you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: If you
already argued this, why would it be any
different at the Third DCA level?
MR. HELFMAN: Just because decisions
by Appellate Courts are reversed every single
day.
MR. WEISS: And it may not be. It 1 s
another chance to argue these arguments,
perhaps in a slightly different way with a
little different authority to another group of
judges.
We win them and we lose them.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: I believe that other
judges also offer a different interpretation .
MR. WEISS: That 1 s the point.
COUNCILWOMAN GORSON: How many
judges are there in the Third
MR. HELFMAN: The size of the panel
there is probably three or five judges,
depending on the size of the panel. It won't
be the whole Court.
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: Let me get
back to what I was asking.
What is the second ground? The
Court bought the second issue --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
MR. HELFMAN: The second issue is
that we didn't have --they said this is
reverse spot zoning. The Court has obviously
rejected that.
They said this Council didn't do
anything to these people. This is a situation
that was created in 1940 by the developer --
or earlier than that.
You didn't do this to them. The
whole concept that they are going forward with
is, \\Look what they have done. They let
everybody build --'1
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: I just
wanted
MR. HELFMAN: The second ground is
that we didn't have a legitimate public
purpose for wanting to keep the property the
way it has been forever.
You would think that if you read the
record
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: What about the
green space argument?
MR. HELFMAN: We had all sorts of
arguments. I don't think it could have been
clear either.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
What the Court said was, "Yes, you
have a very laudable position in wanting to
preserve your community. That's fine. But
where is the evidence that supports that
goal?"
Just having the goal is not enough.
41
You have to have evidence to support the goal
that you are trying to accomplish.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: You told
us that we have a minimal amount of evidence
on the record to support that decision.
MR. HELFMAN: That's correct.
What we are saying is that we are
hopeful with decisions like this that this
next Court is going to say it may be minimal,
but it was enough.
It rises to a level of enough
evidence that we think the Court should have
upheld the decision. That's where we are.
In this case, the Circuit Court said
there wasn't enough evidence, that just
complaining what it looked like and the fact
that you didn't l ike it and it was an eyesore
wasn't enough.
This Court says it was enough. It
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was enough because they weren't just making
that up. If you look at this project, it is
an eyesore.
So we are hopeful that what wil l
happen is --believe me, I think you are
taking the right approach. You need to look
at this from both perspectives.
42
Are we wasting our time? I th i nk
it's corr ect to p l ay the devil's advocate
here, but I also think that you are not
wasting your time in trying to get this Court
to reverse the decision , in particular because
of decisions like this.
We see this Court moving further and
further toward neighbors, as opposed to the
development community. As the days go by, we
see that happening by different judges, not
just the same judges each time.
This decision was not by Schwartz,
who is the major anti-development guy. T h is
is by Cope, Goderich and Sorondo.
This is a whole different group o f
people that are making these decisions.
MR. WEISS: Just to let you know our
perspective, we are not advocating --we are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
trying to present this to you. We are not
pushing you to appeal this at all.
I don't want you to think that we
are pushing you to do this because we are
dying for legal work. We are just trying to
give you
MR. HELFMAN: We have a few things
to do when we walk out of here.
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: Steve, can I
43
ask you in both your judgments, wouldn't it
be correct that we expected the Circuit Court
to do this and is it rare for a Circuit Court
to say the Commission was right and the issue
is dead?
MR. WEISS: No.
Generally, the presumption is that
what the Commission did is right. The problem
is that in these particular zoning cases, the
way they come up is --after Jennings and the
Snyder case, once they put the evidence on the
record that they met the procedural
requirements, you have to give them some
zoning that is consistent with the Master
Plan.
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: The Circuit
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Court usually agrees with the developer?
MR. WEISS: No, I would say --you
have to take a list of opinions where the
government's challenge
44
The Circuit Court usually agrees
with the government --usually. That's
usually what happens. But it could go either
way.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: One other
point, if I may.
You mentioned earlier to us that
indirect overtures of compromise of a deal was
a possibility.
MR. HELFMAN: Absolutely.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: Are we
allowed to discuss settlement?
MR. WEISS: Settlement is a
specifically authorized subject of these
Executive Sessions.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: Let me
know if I am going astray, please.
It has always been common knowledge
that a that certainly the oceanfront was a
sore spot and proliferation of development of
the marina was a sore spot.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
We went through the exercise of site
plan approvals regarding the modification of
the yacht club and such.
We also have all been privy to the
innuendo, gossip or whatever you want to call
it, of single family homes or town homes
placed around the marina, possibly fill i ng in
the marina, poss i bly not filling in the
marina.
Where does this all gel, meaning
MR. WEISS: It has to come from --
there is a concern overall in the community
and from the Council about overall development
in the Village.
If there is a potential settlement,
basically, what has to happen is that the
Council would say to us, "We don't like what
is going to happen on the oceanfront."
I am just saying this and if it's
wrong, tell me I am wrong.
We are concerned about overall
development in the Village. If we had some
assurance that there wasn't going to be any
development on the other side this is sort
of what has been talked about by these
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
lawyers.
If we were sure that there is going
to be no development on the bay side, then we
would settle this thing.
COUNCILMAN BOGGESS: Do we own the
property on the bay side?
MR. HELFMAN: It's not our issue.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: Would they still own
it or would they give it to the Village?
MR. HELFMAN: They might give it to
the Village and --
MAYOR SPIEGEL: What if they give it
to the Village
MR. HELFMAN: Maybe that's an
interesting thing to explore.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: To create a park for
only the residents on the west side, not for
anybody else to come into, like the little
park we are talking about building.
What is wrong with that? You could
always move there if you like it.
MR. WEISS: The other concern I have
about a public park on the west side is
because
MAYOR SPIEGEL: It wouldn't be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4 7
public. It would be private.
MR. WEISS: The point is that it
belongs to the Village. We already have sort
of an issue there to begin with.
You are going to have to then allow
access to the residential area, which I know
they do not want.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: What I am
getting at --
MR. HELFMAN: Before you do that,
let me tell you that if that was an idea, I'm
not so sure that it cannot be accomplished.
The developer can accomplish it by restricting
the use of the land.
The developer can dictate how he
wants to make his gifts, if you will, and his
dedication and donation to the community.
He may very well say, "I will give
you this land, but I am giving it to you for a
specific purpose. I want it to be restricted
that way. I am giving it because I want the
residentia l people on the west side of the
Village to have a facility. I don't want it
to be overwhelmed by the condo dwellers. I am
going to give it to you, but you accept it
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
with a deed restriction that says that you,
the Village, can only allow the people here."
We need to look at that. But in
that instance, you would not be creating the
separation between the communities or the
division of rights. You would not be
precluding the people. It would be the
developer who would be limiting.
If that is a concept that you all
want to explore, don't be put off by it.
Think about all the ideas that you want to
think about and let us worry about whether
they can be accomplished legally.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: You
mentioned in your presentation before --you
argued that Bal Harbour's developer built the
marina, the oceanfront, the multi-family
dwellings, the single-family dwellings.
For a new developer to build homes
or town homes around a fifty-year-old marina
that has always been built and developed as it
was --I'm not talking about the yacht club
because that's also been there.
Does Bal Harbour have a say in that
occurring?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
MR. HELFMAN: Absolutely.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: More than
just a site plan approval?
MR. WEISS: It's zoned P .C. now,
isn't it?
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: It is·
zoned P.C., which allows single family.
MR. HELFMAN: It does, except that
the physical upland area allows for very
limited --you couldn't get many homes on
there.
They would have to actually try to
fill in the basin.
That is totally within your domain,
completely. It would require an amendment to
the comprehensive plan, which is a legislative
function which you don't have to give.
That is not a quasi-judicial
function, like a zoning hearing.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: You are
assuming that they can't fit structures on t he
existing land. I am going to tell you they
can.
I'm going to tell you that they can
put a thin band of town homes. They can be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50
single-family town homes, which may qualify as
a single-family home. Attached or unattached,
we don't discern, I don't think.
MR. HELFMAN: Except that your code
has minimum lot sizes and lot frontages and
things with single-family homes.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: Not in the
P.C. district.
MR. HELFMAN: It says as are
permitted in the R-1 district.
MR. WEISS: Remember, we amended i t.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: I recall.
But what I am getting at is that there seems
to be a little arm twisting right now applied
by AVA, and justifiably so, to try to massage
this deal.
MR. HELFMAN: I don't think they are
arm twisting and saying, "We are going to put
houses in there," as much as they are saying,
"We may come in and build an active clubhouse
there, a really active clubhouse there. We
may come in and do just exactly what we are
allowed to do. We are going to open it up and
run a club there."
The community would be just as upset
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with t hat as they would probably be with
homes.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: I would
say so.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: Probably more.
MR. HELFMAN: So they are not
necessarily using --they know that the
single-family scenario is not a strong one.
51
The last time that Handsman spoke to
me about this potential thing, he said, "You
know, we could build a big clubhouse and I
don't think you guys would like that."
So that is the concept.
I don't know how big a clubhouse.
We have restricted it to a certain size that
we felt was compatibl e.
MR. WEISS: A couple of years ago,
we said that R-1 single-family resident i al
uses are permitted in t he P.C. district.
However , maximum density, building height,
floor area, setbacks and maximum lot coverage
and other standards shall be those standards
set forth for the R-1 district .
MR. HELFMAN: So you can't just
build town homes. R-1 doesn't allow for town
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
homes.
You have to build houses comparable
to the houses that are there.
MR. WEISS: There is also a minimum
lot area that we included.
MR. HELFMAN: Of how much?
MR. WEISS: Seventeen thousand five
hundred.
MR. HELFMAN: That's 100 by 170
deep.
MR. WEISS: And a minimum width of
100.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: It's not that deep.
MR. HELFMAN: A minimum width of
what?
MR. WEISS: One hundred.
MR. HELFMAN: They are going to get
maybe one house in there. It's not a big
threat.
MR. HELFMAN: They might.
COUNCILMAN BOGGESS: I think it's
more than that.
52
COUNCILWOMAN GORSON: Going back to
the original decision, were there signatures
and lists of the neighbors with the petitions?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HELFMAN: Absolutely. It was
part of the record, but a list of people is
not testimony.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: They appointed
somebody in each building to collect them.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: You said
earlier that petitions are an effective form
of neighborhood protests of a particular
development.
53
MR. HELFMAN: It is, but pure
protest alone --what the Court is telling you
is that pure protest alone is not enough.
MR. WEISS: You just can't come in
and say, "I don't like it. I don't like it.
I don't like it."
MR. HELFMAN: That's what the
petitions are. It is hundreds of people who
say, "We don't want it."
Well, so what? Give us some
evidence as to why you don't want it, is what
the Court is saying.
The evidence as to why you don't
want it is that you just don't want it.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: Do you
think that the attorneys representing the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
citizens in this case did not do as thorough a
presentation as they should have?
MR. HELFMAN: In retrospect now,
they obviously didn't put on enough evidence
to convince the Court.
COUNCILMAN BOGGESS: Richard kept
sayi ng at the time, "We need evidence, not
opini on."
MR. HELFMAN: We told them publicly
and we told them privately, believe me. We
shared that information with you so that you
coul d disseminate it if you recall and say,
"Go out and get your lawyers and get your
evidence."
I will tell you that John Shubin is
an extremely capable lawyer. He has won many
cases under these theories.
He believes that what he put on was
adequate.
MR. WEISS: He is adamant about it.
MR. HELFMAN: Yes, he is adamant
about it. He believes that he put in enough.
He thinks there is enough there.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: Let's get back --
COUNCILMAN BOGGESS: The time is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
moving on.
I want to raise another question.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: Go ahead.
COUNCILMAN BOGGESS: Their proposal
--I don't think we can go into that right
now.
55
Here is what I want to know and what
we have to consider .
If we win the appeal, then wha t do
we do?
MR. WEISS: If you win the appeal,
you won. That's it.
MR. HELFMAN: He is saying as a
practical matter --
COUNCILMAN BOGGESS: As a practical
matter.
MR. WEISS: It's over.
MR. HELFMAN: He is saying, what is
going to open there.
COUNCILMAN BOGGESS: We are going to
wind up with the club being sold on the
courthouse steps somewhere.
We are going to go through this
exercise again, I'm afraid. I don't want that
property developed, but I don't see the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
alternative.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: Let me
ask you a question.
56
We have raised this amongst
ourselves. If the club wants to cease their
operation, why could they not build a single-
family home complex on the ocean?
Let's assume there can be found a
dozen or more people to spend three, four,
five million dollars for an oceanfront house
in Bal Harbour, which doesn't exist now.
Nothing prevents them from doing
that.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: Sol Taplin brought
that up.
COUNCILMAN BOGGESS: You have a
situation where you have people in the
building next door looking right down in your
backyard all the time.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: You have
that in Golden Beach.
COUNCILMAN BOGGESS: You have that
where the Blue and Green Diamonds are.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: They tried that.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: I wouldn't
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mind an oceanfront house in Bal Harbour
Village. That would be very nice.
57
MR. HELFMAN: They want to make
thi rty-five million dollars for their
property, is what they want to do. They want
to make millions of dollars.
There is nothing to say that that
property cannot be operated as a beautiful
private c lub on the ocean, if they want to
se l l it for four or five million dollars and
make a nice profit.
They are saying t hat we can't
f e asibl y operate a club. I don't believe
them. I believe that every private club can
be operated there. They may have to assess
the members, like every other club in the
country assesses their members for
improvements.
A club can be operated t h ere. Just
because it's expensive to opera t e a club there
and because they want to sell the property for
thirty -five million dollars doesn't mean that
you can't successfully run a club there.
Believe me, I will try at five
million dollars personally to run a club
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
there. I bet I can make it work.
COUNCILMAN BOGGESS: If they had
comped the management through the years, they
wouldn't be in this situation.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: Of course.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: That was a very,
very inflated price. They kept raising the
price all the time.
MR. HELFMAN: What I am saying is
that as a practical matter, what happens there
--does it end up on the courthouse steps?
No.
What happens there is that the club
says, "We are going to have to sell it as a
single-family site or as a club."
What is it worth? Somebody is going
to come along and pay them five to ten million
dollars for that site as a club or for single-
family homes. It's going to happen.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: One group has
already invested more than four million
dollars to maintain it as a club.
MR. HELFMAN: Who is that?
MAYOR SPIEGEL: Two people. Johnson
and Stoker, they put over four million dollars
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
into it.
MR. WEISS: The time is drawing
close.
What we need from you --right now,
we are on track, aggressively pursuing this
appeal.
If we get a settlement offer from
them, we will have another Executive Session
and bring it to you.
If you are comfortable with us that
way, you don't need to take any action. We
are moving ahead doing that.
MR. HELFMAN: There is a slight
chance that the motion for clarification and
rehearing will be granted. It's small.
Probably one or two percent of them get
granted.
It may happen. We filed it more
than two weeks ago. We have heard nothing
from the Court.
59
Generally, when a Court has made a
decision, they pretty much summarily send back
"Denied." We haven't gotten that.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: Don 1 t open
tomorrow's mail.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
MR. HELFMAN: It probably will be in
tomorrow's mail.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: Of course,
it will, because you mentioned it today.
MR. HELFMAN: Once we get that
decision, and we expect it will be a denial,
then we file a petition in thirty days with
the Appellate Division.
Unless you tell us not to, that has
been our intent and plan.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: One more
question before I would vote, personally.
Forgive the question from the standpoint of
respect because I have high regard for you
both.
Should we be hiring additional
appellate counsel to deal with this case?
MR. WEISS: We really feel --again,
if I didn't think that we could do a great job
on this, I wouldn't do i t .
T he lawyers that we have working
with us in addition to Steve, one of the
attorney's name is Danny Weiss, who
represented Dade County doing just these
appeals for years and years.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The answer is no.
MR. HELFMAN: The only person I
would tell you to hire is John Shubin and he
is already in the case.
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: How about the
lawyers that did this case?
MR. HELFMAN: That is the County
Attorney's Office.
61
MR. WEISS: That's where Danny Weiss
came out of and where I came out of.
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: Because this
case is really, really important.
MR. HELFMAN: What is important
about this is that the people here --Stanley
Price, Eileen Mehta and all the people that
are here, they lost this case. They are
outstanding land use lawyers. They are very
capable.
They are up there with us. They
were our partners. We know them inside and
out.
you have.
it really
They lost. It doesn't matter who
If you have knowledgeable people,
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: The only
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
reason I asked that is that this was the
biggest case and I had to bring you a copy of
this case.
MR. WEISS: No --
MR. HELFMAN: We filed this with the
Court two weeks ago.
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: I am saying
today. I had to hand you a copy of the case.
MR. WEISS: We don't need it. We
know the case.
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: He wanted to
read it. He took a copy.
MR. WEISS: No --
MR. HELFMAN: Danny, the reason I
wanted to look at it is to see which three
judges wrote the decision. That's the only
reason.
MR. WEISS: I don't have one
particular case. I am citing you cases.
I don't need that. I know that
case.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: Can I ask
one more question?
Assuming this Council today decides
to move ahead with the appeal and assuming
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that you are contacted for negotiation --
let's assume that they will give us the west
side in exchange for something on the east
side, we would have then another Executive
Session?
63
MR. WEISS: We ask them to put it in
writing and we bring it to you in Executive
Session and you go over it.
MR. HELFMAN: You can have as many
of the sessions as you want.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: That doesn 1 t stop
the appeal?
MR. HELFMAN: That doesn't stop the
appeal. It just keeps it moving forward.
COUNCILMAN BOGGESS: I believe what
you said is that no action is required today
because you are ready to go to appeal?
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: I think
they want to reaffirm from us --
MR. HELFMAN: No action on a
settlement is required today.
In other words, they made an
overture with regard to settlement. You don't
need to do anything on it, unless you're
really interested in doing that.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
COUNCILMAN BOGGESS: I am talking
about going to appeal.
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: The only thing
I would ask, because I am only on the Council
a short time --this is probably one of the
most important cases that we will ever have.
MR. HELFMAN: Absolutely.
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: So please work
as hard as you can and as diligently as you
can. We love you for it. This is very
important.
MR. WEISS: We understand.
MR. HELFMAN: I don't know if you
looked at what we generated in terms of work
product.
If you look, you will see the
commitment.
If you had come, you would have seen
that we gave an incredible argument. And you
can ask people. You don't have to take my
word for it.
But aside from that, the work
product alone, if you look at it, you will see
the commitment that went into this. It was an
extraordinary effort.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We didn't win, but we are certainly
putting in everything that you deserve.
65
COUNCILMAN BOGGESS: Give it the old
college try.
MR. HELFMAN: We will give more than
that.
Understand that the contents of this
Executive Session should be kept private. You
shouldn't be discussing it with people
outside.
COUNCILMAN TANTLEFF: How about with
each other?
MR. HELFMAN: No, definitely not.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: We definitely can't
speak with each other.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: So we do
not need a vote necessarily to go ahead?
MR. HELFMAN: No. What we are
telling you is that we are going to file the
appeal unless you tell us not to and I haven't
heard anybody say no.
ASSISTANT MAYOR HIRSCHL: No one
said not to.
MAYOR SPIEGEL: The attorney-client
session is now terminated and members of the
66
1 general public are now invited back into the
2 Council chambers for any further proceedings
3 or matters.
4 (Thereupon, the Executive Session
5 was concluded at 3:00 p.m.)
67
CERTIFICATE
STATE OF FLORIDA )
)ss:
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE )
I, RITA BERNSTEIN, Court Reporter, do
hereby certify that I reported the Village of Bal
Harbour Council Executive Session; and that the
foregoing pages, numbered from 1 to 66, inclusive,
constitute a true record of the said hearing.
I further certify that I am not an
attorney nor counsel for any of the parties, nor a
relative or employee of any attorney or counsel
connected with the action, nor financially
interested in the action.
WITNESS my hand in the City of Miami,
County of Miami-Dade, State of Florida, this 24th
day of September 1998 .
7 Coujit Reporter