Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10/27/2011MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2011 at 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I. Call to Order. Chairman Ganger called the meeting to order at 8:30 A.M. II. Roll Call. Present and Robert W. Ganger Chairman Participating Scott Morgan Vice -Chairman Malcolm Murphy Board Member Thomas Smith Board Member Absent w/Notice Amanda Jones Alternate Member Also Present and William H. Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk John Randolph Town Attorney Douglas W. Mann, P.E of Agent/Goodman Coastal Planning & Engeering Brian D. Pfeifler Neighbor of Goodman Mark Marsh of Bridges, Agent/Silverman Marsh & Associates Keith Williams of Mario Nievera Design James Ballerano, Esq. Land. Arch./Silverman Leg. Counsel/Silverman Chairman Ganger mentioned Charles Frankel's resignation from the Architectural Review and Planning Board and asked Clerk Taylor if he is still maintaining residency in the Town. Clerk Taylor said he has moved out of Gulf Stream. Mr. Randolph said Mr. Frankel owns a home in Gulf Stream, but he no longer resides there. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 9-22-11. Chairman Ganger mentioned that the application for the proposed subdivision of the Spence property, which was on the October 14th Commission Meeting Agenda and has been debated at several meetings, was deferred due to failure to achieve a quorum as a result of recusals and a resignation. He added that this application will be addressed at the November 10th Commission Meeting and Public Hearing. Chairman Ganger announced the resignation of Chris D. Wheeler from the Town Commission. Mr. Morgan moved and Mr. Smith seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of September 22, 2011. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. There were no changes. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. November 17, 2011 @ 6:30 A.M. b. December 28, 2011 @ 8:30 A.M. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review & Planning Board - October 27, 2011 Page 2 c. January 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. d. February 23, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. e. March 22, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. Chairman Ganger asked if there were any conflicts with the meeting schedule. There were no conflicts. He inquired about the availability of Alternate ARPB Member Amanda Jones. Clerk Taylor said Ms. Jones contacted her a couple of weeks ago saying she would be in South Africa and would not attend the October Meeting, but would then be available for the next few months. Chairman Ganger asked if there would be nomination for a new ARPB Member at the November Meeting and Clerk Taylor said there are two individuals who have expressed their interest to serve on the Board. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. Chairman Ganger stated that he would request declaration of Ex -parte communication prior to hearing each matter. Clerk Taylor asked those intending to speak during this Public Hearing to stand. She administered the Oath to Douglas Mann, Brian Pfeifler, Mark Marsh, Keith Williams and James Ballerano. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Marc Julien Homes, LLC as agent for William H. Binnie, owner of property located at 1314 N. Ocean Boulevard, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lots 4, 4A, 5 and SA Replat of Donald B. McLouth Subdivision, Gulf Stream, Florida. a. LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN SIGN REVIEW to permit installation of a two (2) square foot black on white contractors sign on the property at 1314 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida. Chairman Ganger asked if there was ex -parte communication concerning this matter. There were no declarations of ex -parte communication. Clerk Taylor read the application summary. There were no representatives present for this matter. Chairman Ganger asked what type of sign will be erected. Mr. Thrasher explained that it is a contractors sign and the recommendation includes conformity to Code Section 66-447. He said he spoke to M.J. Homes informing them that they will need to modify the requested size to the size required by Code and they have agreed to do so. Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to approve a sign permit for erection of a contractors sign based on a finding that the proposed sign meets the requirements of Code Section 66-447, subject to a maximum height of 4 feet and maximum 2 SF sign size. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Vice -Chairman Morgan, AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Chairman Ganger, AYE. The motion passed by a vote of 4 - 0. 2. An application submitted by Douglas W. Mann, P.E. of Coastal Planning & Engineering, as agent for Barry Goodman, owner of the property located at 3603 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as a portion of Lot 8 of Replat of Lots 8 and 9, Gulf Stream Ocean Tracts and a portion of Lots 7, 8 & 9, Block B Palm Beach Shore Acres, to consider the following: Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review & Planning Board - October 27, 2011 Page 3 a. SPECIAL EXCEPTION to permit extension of existing tile deck 12' seaward to the leeward foot of the dune and will include placement of beach compatible fill held in place by a retaining wall constructed with railroad ties. b. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction of a 648 square foot tile deck O extension to the existing deck which will extend 12' seaward to the leeward foot of the dune, placed on beach compatible fill material with a retaining wall of railroad ties. Chairman Ganger asked if there were any ex -parte communications concerning this matter. Chairman Ganger stated that he drove by the site and he knows the Goodmans and Brian Pfeifler personally. There were no declarations of ex -parte communication. Clerk Taylor read the application summary. Douglas Mann of Coastal Planning & Engineering introduced himself and said this is a small project relative to the overall property which was developed about 12 years ago. He said there is an existing tile deck surrounding the pool area and they are proposing to extend the deck 12 feet seaward and over the top of the existing concrete seawall. Mr. Mann displayed a drawing of the existing area and the proposed section of the deck addition which is directly seaward and south of the existing dune overwalk structure. He said the overwalk structure will not be altered as a part of this application and there is existing overgrown vegetation in the dune system which provides a fair amount of privacy between the Goodmans and the neighbor to the north. Mr. Mann said the goal is to expand the deck to reflect the property to the south which is completely horizontal to an existing 3 -foot tall concrete block wall where the lawn on the adjacent property ends and the native vegetation dune begins. Chairman Ganger asked Staff if there was anything in the application to renovate the old Ireland house indicating that they planned to extend the dune seaward from the main house. Mr. Thrasher said there was nothing to that effect in the application. Mr. Smith asked if a tile deck exists on the property to the south going out to that seawall. Mr. Mann said it is currently grassed. He said the proposed location of the retaining wall is to match the southern adjoining property's concrete block wall so they will be equal and level to each other. Mr. Smith asked about the property to the north. Mr. Mann said the seawall is an extension of the property to the north and the sloping concrete seawall has been in existence for a long time. He said these properties have narrow frontage, they were subdivided years ago and the seawall precedes the Goodmans and previous owners. Chairman Ganger said there is a lot of ocean activity in that area in a storm and it is difficult to get around. Mr. Mann said he worked for the Goodmans a decade ago when they put the first retaining wall in at the base, which is still visible from the beach and is essentially built into the rock, and it was built there so they would have some beach area to sit on. Chairman Ganger asked Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review & Planning Board - October 27, 2011 Page 4 about the vegetation and Mr. Mann said it is primarily Scavola which is an exotic species and requires a lot of maintenance. Mr. Mann displayed a drawing indicating the existing railroad tie wall which is founded on rock base and there is an accumulation of sand and overgrown vegetation. Chairman Ganger asked if the existing wall is tied into the rock with rebar. Mr. Mann said it is a frangible wall and CIIwas designed to hold the sand back from rolling over the wall over and CJ` not to hold the ocean from going westward. He said they are not trying to increase the level of protection, but they are proposing the same type of wall which will break away in a storm. Mr. Mann displayed a rendering of what the wall will look like from the beach. He said the wall is a low timber wall and all of the existing vegetation sitting along the dune will remain and impair the visibility of the tile deck looking west. Chairman Ganger asked if the neighbor to the north will experience visual impairment looking south. Mr. Mann said the neighbor to the north and the Goodmans share the vegetation which extends out as far as the existing deck and the existing dune overwalk system will remain and, therefore, will have very little impact on the neighbor to the north. Mr. Smith asked if they were putting in railroad ties and backfilling with sand. Mr. Mann confirmed that. He said the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) will require a permit to build the structure since it is seaward from the Coastal Construction Control Line, and they are very specific about the type of sand that can be brought in. He said it must be clean and very similar to what is on the beach because it will eventually wind up on the beach in a storm. The most reliable source of that type of sand that is clean and the right color and size is a plant located in Ortona, which is west of Lake Okeechobee. Mr. Mann said they sell their sand mainly to concrete manufacturers, but it is just sand. He said they are proposing to build the retaining wall, back fill with sand and put the tiles on top, which is the same type of construction that was permitted by the State 12 years ago. Chairman Ganger asked about the impact a storm would have on what they are proposing. Mr. Mann said any construction that is seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line has the potential of being impacted during a storm. State regulations put a priority on habitable homes to be sure they are storm proof and anything else from your habitable O structure is frangible and non-essential to live there. They would like to see this type of a structure break up and allow the sand to wash out and go out to sea. He said the design is consistent with State standards. There were no further questions of the Board at this time. Vice - Chairman Morgan mentioned a letter the Board received this morning from Brian Pfeifler, the neighbor to the north of the subject property. He wanted to hear from Mr. Pfeifler and then have Mr. Mann respond. Chairman Ganger asked if the applicant has seen Mr. Pfeifler's letter. Clerk Taylor said they did not, but the agent was given a copy this morning. Chairman Ganger asked if the Town provided proper notice to Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review & Planning Board - October 27, 2011 Page 5 the neighbors. Clerk Taylor said the Town was required to notice the neighbors within 25 feet for this type of application. Clerk Taylor read the letter addressed to the ARPB from Brian Pfeifler into the record. In his letter, Mr. Pfeifler states that he received notification of this application on Monday, November 24th and did not have an opportunity to fully investigate potential problems. His property and the Goodman property share a common seawall and Mr. Pfeifler asked if the proposed changes to the sea wall would affect the Cintegrity of his section of the sea wall and if altering the sea wall would create a water vortex that may endanger his property. Mr. Pfeifler had questions concerning the existing dune overwalk structure and whether it would remain. In his letter Mr. Pfeifler recommended that, at the expense of the applicant, an independent engineering firm be retained to evaluate the proposed changes. Mr. Pfeifler's letter will be filed with the Official Records of the Town. Chairman Ganger noted that Mr. Mann addressed some of Mr. Pfeifler's questions during his presentation and he asked Mr. Pfeifler if he would like to comment further. Mr. Pfeifler said some of his questions have been addressed, but he is still concerned that his southern view will be obscured if the deck is built out seaward with a 3 -foot wall around it. He said if the deck is extended 12 feet out and you stand at the edge of the deck you would look directly onto his property, which would interfere with his privacy. Mr. Pfeifler said the slope seawall is impervious and was built right, but because of the way water comes into that area he feels that anything backed by ties will be torn up in a storm. He also asked about the wooden walkover and how they plan to back it up. Mr. Mann said there is a return wall adjacent and parallel to the existing dune overwalk to retain the sand and tiles south of the overwalk. Chairman Ganger asked if the railroad ties used for the retaining wall will be pinned to the concrete seawall. Mr. Mann said they will be pinned to the concrete seawall. Chairman Ganger asked if the north and south would also be pinned. Mr. Mann said they plan to drill a short distance into the concrete seawall, put rebar in with epoxy to hold it in place, drill holes into the ties and set them over the top of the rebar so they stay in place while the soil loads and is transferred down into the concrete. Chairman Ganger asked if there will be a railing on the wall. Mr. Mann said it is not included in this proposal and they would only add a rail if the Building Code required them to do so due to the dropoff. O Mr. Morgan asked Mr. Pfeifler what the Goodmans would see if they looked over onto his property. Mr. Pfeifler said there is a concrete area with chairs and at the present time he has privacy from the Goodmans because of the dense vegetation they share. He said the vegetation has grown outward and there is cement there which makes it impossible to plant additional vegetation for privacy. Mr. Morgan asked about the property to the south of the Goodmans. Mr. Mann said it is level and grassed out to the concrete wall and they are trying to make the Goodman property similar to the southern property. He said there is existing heavy vegetation and his perception is that what they are proposing will have minimal impact on visibility. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review & Planning Board - October 27, 2011 Page 6 Mr. Randolph said he sees nothing in the criteria for special exception relating to view of adjacent property. He said there is a provision in the Code which allows for patios and decks and it is under the standards for special exception, but it does not include criteria relating to views from adjacent properties. It relates to the integrity of the patio and deck and says the deck shall not extend seaward of the leeward foot of the dune. It provides that plans must be sealed by a licensed engineer and must have DEP approval. The State requires that anything Cwhich is erected east of the Coastal Construction Control Line must be frangible. Vice -Chairman Morgan asked what would prevent them from extending the deck out 24 feet. Mr. Thrasher said the leeward line of the dune is right there. Mr. Mann said the property was surveyed and the edge of the existing sloping seawall falls at the leeward side of the dune. He said the State will limit how far seaward they can extend and they can only ask the State if they can build the deck on top of the sloping portion of the seawall, which is as far as they can go. Chairman Ganger asked if the Board is empowered to make a decision based on whether one change to a property, which can affect a contiguous property, could potentially cause future damage. Mr. Randolph said under the Code and through zoning regulations you try to resolve those issues by dealing with setbacks of adjoining properties and lot coverage. He said the State is also protective of that with regard to what they allow to be built east of the Coastal Construction Control Line. Mr. Randolph said there is nothing in the Code which would set that forth as criteria and you must rely on evidence presented as opposed to what might happen in the future. Chairman Ganger noted that in his letter Mr. Pfeifler recommended an independent engineer be hired to give a certified opinion and asked if that is a reasonable request. Vice -Chairman Morgan said Mr. Pfeifler's concern with this proposal is the impact it will have on his view, but by Code it meets applicable standards and the Board's hands may be tied. Mr. Pfeifler said he believes it will impede his view and will have an effect on his property value. Mr. Randolph said the ARPB will make their recommendation on this matter to the Commission for their final approval. Mr. Smith asked if it would be inappropriate to request an independent study. Mr. Randolph said based on the criteria provided in the Code we are relying upon final approval from the DEP and plans that must be signed and sealed by a licensed coastal engineer, and Mr. Mann is a licensed Coastal Engineer. Chairman Ganger asked if Mr. Pfeifler has the right to get another opinion at his expense which may refute this proposal if he does not agree with Mr. Mann's opinion. He said the Board would not make that a condition on this application, but there have been applications which have been debated and, at the expense of another party, an expert was hired to render their professional opinion. Chairman Ganger said the Board is sympathetic with Mr. Pfeifler's concerns, but he is convinced that Staff has been very careful to assure there are no violations in this matter. Vice -Chairman Morgan suggested that Mr. Pfeifler spend some time reviewing the Code to prepare his presentation to the Commission. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review & Planning Board - October 27, 2011 Page 7 Chairman Ganger said Mr. Pfeifler asked for a deferral to address some issues. Mr. Randolph said an applicant is entitled to a special exception unless there is evidence presented which would show a lack of entitlement. He said he is not sure there has been evidence presented which would indicate that the applicant is not entitled to a special exception, but when looking at the criteria he missed another section of the Code which includes criteria relating to the granting of a special exception and says that the application shall not be detrimental to Cadjoining property owners. Mr. Randolph said this might allow the Board to consider a deferral of this application. He said if the Board would like to defer this application they can do so and the obligation to submit proof that the standards have not been met would be the responsibility of the person objecting to this application. Mr. Randolph said some of the standards are quite general and others are vague. Vice -Chairman Morgan referenced Section 66-164, Standards for Special Exceptions, Subsection 3, which says that the proposed use or structure will not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood where it is to be located. He said there are eight other clauses which also speak generally to that sort of overall consideration of the impact of the application. Vice -Chairman Morgan said a deferral is not a bad idea for the Board and for Mr. Pfeifler to evaluate the other sections of the Code and for the applicant to address them, and to have time to present more evidence on what the impact will truly be. Chairman Ganger said in all fairness a deferral may be necessary and he would agree to a date certain deferral. Mr. Pfeifler said he would have enough time to prepare for the November 17th ARPB Meeting. Vice -Chairman Morgan commented that Mr. Mann did an excellent job with his presentation. Mr. Smith moved and Vice -Chairman Morgan seconded to defer this application until the next ARPB Meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 17 to give Mr. Pfeifler an opportunity to review the Code or consult an engineer at his expense. Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Mann if he would be able to address the Building Code requirement as to whether or not this extension of the patio and immediate drop off will require a railing. Mr. Mann said he could not do so today, but would be able to address the matter on November 17th. Roll Call: Vice -Chairman Morgan, AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Chairman Ganger, AYE. The motion passed by a vote of 4 - 0. VII. Items related to previous approvals. i� A. Improvements at 1465 N. Ocean Blvd. v 1. Final Landscape/Hardscape design Chairman Ganger stated that he is the property owner directly to the south of the subject property and recused himself from this matter. Vice -Chairman Morgan took the gavel. Clerk Taylor read Robert W. Ganger's recusal letter into the record. In his letter Mr. Ganger confirmed his approval of the walkover as shown in the latest plans. He said he has seen no elevated illustrations of the proposed landscaping and cannot provide public comment as to whether it will reinstate the lush appearance and privacy inherent in the prior design. His letter will be filed with the Official Records of the Town of Gulf Stream Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review & Planning Board - October 27, 2011 Page 8 Mr. Thrasher asked if he could read or have the Board consider the deferral request from the Alexanders who are the neighbors to the north of the subject property. Mr. Bellarano, counsel to the applicant, objected to the letter being read aloud stating that the letter is unsigned and is not from the property owner. He said there is no legal authority or standing on the part of someone who is not a property owner to have a letter of this sort read into the record. Mr. Randolph said Canyone's comments can be heard during a public hearing and he asked Clerk Taylor to summarize the letter since it is several pages long. Clerk Taylor said the Alexanders are not in residence at this time and they requested a copy of the plan be sent to them. Clerk Taylor said they have had the plan in there possession for about one week now and the Alexanders were not able to discern the differences between the two plans. She said the Alexanders feel the new plan will encroach on their privacy with the additional sidewalk and the height of the planters. Clerk Taylor said the Alexanders would prefer to be present during this discussion and they are asking for a delay. Mr. Smith commented that the plans were small and he also had a difficult time seeing the changes. He said the neighbors would benefit from viewing the larger color renderings and to hear the presentation. Mr. Marsh introduced himself saying that he has been on this project for a year and a half and it is a very unique property. He commented that the adjacent neighbor has objected to plans four times just before a meeting date which is unfair to the applicant. Mr. Marsh said Keith Williams is present to detail the new landscape plan and feels that the Board should judge this application by what is presented. He said what was originally approved was a concept and not a final hardscape/ landscape plan and the Town Manager has requested that this come with the new landscape architect and they have complied with everything. Mr. Marsh summarized the four objections, starting with a grill area. Mr. Marsh said a grill area does not exist on the north side of the existing building. He said there is also an objection to elevated planters with banquette seats which are 16" high. Mr. Marsh said there is a bulkhead that is 33" high and nothing is visible and will have no impact. Mr. Smith asked if there is an outdoor cooking or barbeque anywhere on the deck. Mr. Marsh said there is not, but there is an another area where they can use a portable barbeque. Mr. Keith Williams introduced himself and stated that originally they had a little bumpout of paving in the deck area where a removable or portable grill could be set, but they Oremoved it from the plan because it was a concern of the neighbors. Mr. Marsh said when they acquired the easement they agreed to install a 7' high privacy wall, which is now in place, and they also agreed to preserve much of the existing Sea Grapes. He said there will be a via connecting the pool house to the main house, which is a trellised area through the new landscape design and the idea is to create a bypass to so that service and repair people do not use the main access entryway. Mr. Marsh said it is sand set coquina stone and is very low key and random and it will meander through the proposed landscape which serves as a buffer to the north property. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review & Planning Board - October 27, 2011 Page 9 Mr. Marsh said they attempted to relocate the laundry room because the neighbors were objecting to the possibility of fumes, but when they could not find an alternative for relocation, they decided to leave it where it is. In addition, Mr. Marsh said the neighbors are objecting to anything electric or gas on the deck area facing the ocean. He said nothing the Silvermans are trying to achieve will impact the neighbors, it is a unique site and nothing has changed in terms of the original O presentation except for the addition of the via designed for use by the service people. Keith Williams displayed a rendering of the proposed final hardscape and landscape plan and summarized starting from the North Ocean Blvd. entrance on the west side of the property. He said there are quite a few large Sea Grape Trees, Screw Pines, Gumbo Limbos and Palm Trees which they will relocate and reuse in the gardens and in the front of the property. Mr. Williams said the existing entrance will remain with two columns and entry gates and they will align the north side of the driveway with various palms and hedges. He said the forecourt area material includes a pattern of brick and Dominican Coral and large Sea Grape and Magnolia trees. Mr. Williams said there is a walkway leading to the pergola with a garden area on the side and a covered walkway leading to the main house, all of which will be surrounded by 12' high trees and a variety of lush tropical landscaping. Mr. Williams detailed the final hardscape and landscape proposal as indicated on the plans. Mr. Williams pointed out an addition to the existing wall that will run from the southeast corner of the house heading east with decorative elements matching the house to the south. Mr. Marsh added that the originally proposed beach walkway has not changed. Mr. Smith said it looks like they have expanded and created a new area around the pool. Mr. Marsh said it was just a lawn area and they created a small patio across from the pergola to give a flow through the garden area. Mr. Marsh said they have heeded all concerns which came from both neighbors. Vice -Chairman Morgan commented that it is a beautiful rendition and an improvement over the original schematic. Mr. Smith commented that Mr. Marsh has answered all objections and the minutes will reflect that. He said the minutes will be available for the Alexanders to read. Mr. Thrasher asked for the distance at the closest point of the north side of the walkway to the property line. Mr. Williams said it is 6 feet. Mr. Thrasher said it does not conflict with the Code. l J Mr. Thrasher stated on record that in a telephone conversation with Ms. lJ Liz Brown he told her the letter would be read verbatim. Vice -Chairman Morgan asked Clerk Taylor if the Commission would have an opportunity to read the letter as the ARPB has. Clerk Taylor said the decision to approve or not to approve will be made by the ARPB and will not go to the Commission. Mr. Randolph said there is no obligation on the part of the Board to read the letter verbatim and the letter can be made a pert of the record and filed with the Official Records of the Town. Vice - Chairman Morgan said the Board Members have read the letter, the questions and concerns have been addressed by the Board and the applicant's Agent and he does not feel the need to read the letter aloud. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review & Planning Board - October 27, 2011 Page 10 Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to approve the final hardscape and landscape design plan as presented to the Board. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Vice -Chairman Morgan, AYE. The Motion passed by a vote of 3 - 0. VIII. Items by Staff. There were no items by Staff. IX. Items by Board Members. There were no items by Board Members. X. Public. There were no public comments. XI. Adjournment. Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to adjoy �the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 A.M. i Gail C. Abbale Administrative Assi FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS Clr ' �iTa /Y / I -FL ('OUNTI' VOIL "114 WHO MUST FILE FORM 819 IE 15 A UNIT OF: _ COUNTY 'OTHER LOCA( AGENCY .. ELECTIVE This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non -advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE.ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible fol recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. • A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. IF YOU'MAK ,NO,ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION :EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT, THE MEETING: o'You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • Y:ou should compinethe form and file it within 15 days after the vote. occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'SI REST ���, ��G'L hereby disclose that on �c 2 19 (a) A measure came Rr will come before my agency which (check one), ✓ �t71 {'r1 �i � CN' OSS �inurcd to my specn 1 private aairf: or inueed'to'the speciaPgain of by whom 1 am retained. (b)'The-measure before my agency and the nature of my`interest in the measure is as follows: at - Lu l d s cc �c1J1C�J ffe h � /IVaC1.' LI, 1 0 reC1L5Cw �1�� FI,!�-ACL d-�- AA� CXe c_r.S L�� z Date Filed /S cas 5 ( /lam c411'Lat—&4- d--� NOTICE: UNDER, PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §1121317 (1985).'A'FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY -ONE -OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT,, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. 7E FORM go • 10.96 PAG