Why Is Boca Raton Losing 30 Acres of Green Space?

http://www.savebocaratongreenspace.org/

On 12/11/07 the city council approved an ordinance to amend the land use on approximately 30 acres of the Boca Teeca golf course (a/k/a Ocean Breeze Country Club). This land had been zoned for recreational and open space for over 30 years and city documents dating back to the time of the approval of the Boca Teeca master plan indicate that this land would remain a golf course in "perpetuity". This 2007 change was a "conditional" approval based upon city codes which provides for an 18 month period for the developer, MCZ/Centrum, to become "vested" in this development project. As of 9/25/98 this development is not vested since no permits have been issued, so under the terms of ordinance 4887 this land use is supposed to revert to the original zoning of recreation & open space. Accordingly, Save Boca Raton Green Space has requested a verification by the city that this conditional approval has expired and the land should be returned to the original zoning as recreation and open space.

Save Boca Raton Green Space & Referendum Effort

Since June 2007 the residents of Boca Raton have voiced their disapproval of this development and the most heavily impacted residents formed Save Boca Raton Green Space in order to formalize their opposition efforts. Save Boca Raton Green Space members filed a referendum petition under the terms of the city charter but the city attorney refused to allow the city clerk to process over 2,000 petitions due to Florida statutes which require more than 5 parcels of land to be impacted in order to qualify for a city wide vote under a referendum. The members of Save Boca Raton Green Space certainly felt the financial impact of this development as their "parcels" of land saw their value decline by $50,000 to $100,000 based upon the Palm Beach Co. appraiser for tax purposes as of 1/1/07. The residents certainly believed their adjacent parcels were "affected" even though the Florida statute did not define the word "Affected", so they sued the city to force the processing of the referendum effort.

The Boca Raton city attorney filed a document with the 4th district court of appeals (DCA) supporting the city of Lake Worth's efforts to stop a similar residential referendum effort in their city. This document supported the city of Lake Worth and asked the 4th DCA to define "affected" parcels as only those parcels being developed. In 2009 the 4th DCA came back with their ruling on the appeal by the city of Lake Worth in which they defined the "affected" parcels as only those being subject to the development. While Save Boca Raton Green Space and most residents with common sense certainly opposed this 4th DCA opinion, the members of Save Boca Raton Green Space determined that this judicial ruling against their efforts was not favorable and dropped their litigation to compel the city to have a city wide vote on this development.

Comprehensive Plan Challenge by Save Boca Raton Green Space

In early 2008 Save Boca Raton Green Space filed a challenge to the 2 comprehensive plan amendments by the city of Boca Raton in order to accommodate the development of 211 townhouses on a portion of the Boca Teeca/Ocean Breeze golf course. These comprehensive plan amendments were filed with the State of FL growth management oversight board for their approval, which was granted in Feb. 2008. One of these comprehensive plan amendments (ord. #4887) was for the land use change to rezone to medium density residential and the other amendment (ord. #4991) accommodated the traffic concurrency requirement by significantly increased the number of vehicle trips considering safe for the constrained 2-lane road of NW 2nd Ave. from Yamato Rd. to Jeffrey St.

In 2005 the city filed their Evaluation and Appraisal Report (E.A.R.) of the Boca Raton Comprehensive Plan and this identified NW 2nd Ave. as a failed road since the traffic exceeded the level of service standards established for a 2-lane road. These level of service standards ar established in order to provide for the health and safety of the residents and visitors traveling on the city's roads. This amendment increased the allowed traffic to almost 50% above the acceptable standard and further established an undefined interim traffic concurrency for all constrained roads within the city based upon the city's intent to approve a MultiModal Transportation District system (MMTD). It appears that the MMTD system is designed to allow for development within the city without concern for traffic standards that are normally required by the FL growth oversight agency. Virtually unlimited traffic without standards for the safety of the motorists does not seem consistent with the principals of the growth management system of the state of Florida.

In May 2008 the Florida Dept. of Administrative Hearings held the hearing on the comprehensive plan challenges and in Aug. 2008 the administrative law judge ruled in favor of the city and the developer. This ruling is a recommendation to the state of Florida oversight agency and as of this post the state authorities have not ruled on this recommendation. Could it be that not only does the state oversight authorities not want to accept the comp plan amendments, but the state authorities may also realize that there is no "need" for additional residential housing in an area that has excessive housing, including many foreclosures?

What are your thoughts on the approval of this land for development?