J-:CoR-UTJRJIJJIfJH.ItV_GULF-I-E7-I*: ,. Tcl:{56I)- 640-949JI'n. t56li UDion (.."oimIy.NJ..; (901)-352 J600(88&)-829-1698 THEODORE LEVY 305 Greenbrier A West Palm Beach, Florida 33417 April17,2011 UCO; LEITERS TO EDITOR: Re: Our GolfCD.,.. Problems 1)The Palm Beach County Zoning Board has demonstrated its fairness and impartiality. In addition to its recent :favorable decision concerning OUT 'Golfs Edge' it has also just in2011issued a 'Mimer Trail Golf Course' decision. 2)The legal precedent is "'on paine': Same circumstances, same state & county, same zoning board, same zoning code, same year,. same size golf course; an inadvertent,made-to-order, legal precedent. 3)Its circumstances so exactly replicate our golfcourse dispute, but for a change ofname & it is virtually our A developer bad purchased an 18-bole golf course abutting a Palm Bach County residential condominium development, and sought a zoning approval to build houses tbereon9 4) Vigorously fought by the developer,. and vigorously opposed by the various associations within the development - and the subsequent etc. - it was just last month finallydecided and.ruled thar the developer had made an "unfortunate investment".Even the phrase " ..in perpetuity" was invoked. 5)Nei:fuer our opposing developer nor any other developer appears to have much likely success, " ...in perpetuity" towards building residential housing facing our wonderful and beautiful Century Village. 6)Two nice results: a)I am in possession ofthe complete,book comprehensively reciting the actual defensive position and lawyers defensive Page 1 of2 ..' position in the [Palm Beach County] 'Mizner Trail Golf Course' matter, including the [successful} detailed legal papers signed & submitted by each ofits opposing development associations, including the points to have been considered by the zoning authority, and resulting in its final decision denying the rezoning. b) I freely offer it to our Century Village. In addition to its guidance, it should be helpful in vastly reducing our (otherwise large) legal costs.. c) Where is our developer going? Unless our developer plans to go into the golf course business, the likelihood ofanother developer stepping into' his shoes appears to say the least. i)lnstead of our facing a decrease in our property values resulting from developer's proposed housing we might work out a mutually interesting takeout and instead use the property ourselves to beautify our development and enhance our property values.. d) Caution: "Don't count your chickens before they hatch": We are handed a good but we shall need an appropriate lawyer to oppose avery determineci developer who is legally betting nall in" to get his way. e) In any case, we should not usejust any lawyer to "re-invent the wheel". Oms is nota cake walk...The choice ofalawyer is neither a beauty contest nor a popularity contest. f) A work has already been done; it would be largely a matter ofsubstituting names in its computer. (l)The Jaw finn used by the MimerTrail condominium owners would appear to have a proven, track record of blocking a housing development to replace a golf course. (2)Furthermore, their legal research and legal strategy is already behindhopefully leading to a significantIy-reducedlegal cost for us to pay. Page2-of2 SECOND COALITION AGAINST rv'lIZNERDEVELOPMENT COMMUNITIES OPPOSED TO THECONVERSION OF MIZNER TRAIL GOLF COURSE JANUARY, 2010 communitieswithsignedresolutions,etc. SECONDCOALITIONAGAINSTMIZNERDEVELOPMENT November,2010 communitiesopposedToTheConversionofMiznerTrailGolfCourse NumberofHouseholdscommunity 172Addisonpoint 300Arborclub 49caminowoodsI 60caminowoodsII 86canarypalmclub 100Cloisters 56Fairwayvillage 25Golfvista 46TheGreens 116LaCosta 188Ironwedge 67LaJoya 99Marbella 35palladium 320PalmsofBocaDelMar patiosDelMarII 35 300Reflections wellesleypark 53 52windrift 26woodbrier 2185 Page1 --- --------------II IFire' Amberwoods! StaUon: ..#55 ..Tiburon""... Casa Nueva ,, Boca Park N t-.--..,.' ..... ..'7:"",..,.,....... 'tII', III ": Woodhaven'Wind,BocaIIB ca rr\. ICondoI:Palms:Boca:Co?onv ,IPlaceI IIHamor Town Communities Opposed to Conversion Of Mizner Trail Golf Course ColonyWoodS --j I I I I

1(0) December 29, 2010 To:Members of thePalmBeach County PlanningandZoningBoard,andCounty Commissioners From:The Second Coalition Against Mizner Development Re:Mizner Trail Zoning Application2010 - 1728 The Coalitionrepresentsthousands of households livingaround the Mizner Trail Golf Course,whichis the subject of a request tochange zoning topermit buildingof 390 housingunits onthe golf course.We haveread theDevelopment Order Amendment Request submittedbythe Siemens Corp,the development company and wouldlike torespondtonumerous inaccuracies andmisrepresentations inthat request. WithRegard totheMaximum AllowableDensity Argument: The Siemens Development Request states that their proposalmeets thePalmBeach County Comprehensive Planfuture landuse development guidelines of 8 dwellingunits per acre. However,theMaster Plan whichestablishedtheBocaDelMar P.U.D.allocated allMaster Plan "units" available inBocaDel Mar to thevarioushomeowner associations withinBocaDelMar. The previous County Commission decisionin2008 which rejected the previous developmentplan acknowledged that there wereno available units to be "recaptured" infuturehousingproposals andthus the golf course was toremainas green space.This discussionisreflectedin the minutes of that 2008meeting whenthe vote toreject was taken.It is the contention of the Coalition,and thehomeownersit represents,that there is no justification onany basisto change the Master Plantoaccomodate a golf course owner who made a badbusiness decisioninbuying aproperty not zonedfor housing. WithRegard to the Changed Conditions Argument: It is ingenuous for Siemens Development toargue that the deteriorating condition of the golf course justifies a Master Planchangeinorder tobuildhouses when the owner of the golf course,whohas anagreement to sell toSiemens contingent upon gettinga zoningchange, createdtheproblembyshuttingdown the golf course inorder to "blackmail" the community into supporting a development proposal. Further,Siemens tries to justify development bystating that "it isnot probable that the subject property willever retumtobeinga golf course"because there isno demand for gOlf. Apart from just beingMr.Siemens' opinion,once againthere isnoproof that thisisso.InJudge Gerber's opinionin 2008,rejectingthesuit brought by Mr.Bliss andMr.Comparato,he stated that the owners hadnot substantiated their claimthat a golf course could not beprofitable.Infact,he noted that the owners hadnot managed the course insuch a way for,jt tobeprofitable.Not only is there a potential demand for golf as demonstrated bytheplannedprofitability of thenew Osprey Pt.Golf Course inW. BocaRaton,but there are several golf courses inBoca that havebeen bought byprivateinvestors since 2008. Yes,the golf coursehas become the"attractive nuisance" Mr.Siemens claims,but that is wholely due to theneglect bythe owner of the golf course andit is certainly not a justification to re-zone theproperty for a development that bringsnobenefit tothehomeowners of Boca Del Mar, who, infact,willfacelower values for their properties,destruction of valuable greenspace and increased traffic andcrowdinginschools. With Regardto theImpact Argument: Once again the County has certifieda development proposalfor thisgolf coursebased on Countytraffic performance stand'ardsThese areminimum standardsFully-developed,this project would leadto800additional cars onnew roads lying close to homes andemptying onto existingroads already heavily-travelled.The last development proposal for Mizner was certifiedalso bytheCounty Staff as to traffic impact,but theproposal was stillrejectedby the County because theproperty was plannedtoremainas golf course or greenspaceinperpetuity andwould, if approved, violate theintegrity of a modelplannedunity development. Withregard tohousingvalues,MrSiemens maintains that pro,perty values willbe improvedby his development.Given the current housingmarket andexistinginventory of unsold houses andcondos,whichmost experts feelwill take years to work down, itmay be yearsbefore demand warrants new housing.There certainly isno demand now, andif new housing were warranted,there are plenty of other pfaces inPalmBeachCounty where it couldbebuilt without destroying this existinglanned community.It isa truism inrealestate that new construction will attract buyersmore thanexistinghousingat thesame price point.Homeowners incommunities around the golf coursehave already seen their property valuesfallbecause of the clOSingof the golf course andtherecession.Buildinghouses right behindthemwinonly compoundtheir problem. WithRegard toRevenue for the County: The argument that the project wouldresult inincreasedrevenue for the County is also specious.First,impactand permit fees are one-time expenses sothat thereal,on-going advaloremtax revenue wouldbe only the $2,500,000 projected;secondly, that wouldbe offset bya decline inrevenue fromexistinghomes due to their decreased value withtheloss of a golf course andgreen space;thirdly,that tax income would only beafter theproject is fully built whichMr. Siemens acknowledges wouldtake10 years;andfinally, that amount of additional taxrevenue is a minute portionof the County budget.In a meetingwithCmmr. Abrams,he acknowledgedthat the tax revenue argument isnot compellingenoughtojustify a zoning change. WithRegardto theBoca Del Mar Improvement Association: Mr.Siemens stated thatthere is future uncertainty for the golf course because of a 2003 agreement between theBDMIA andthe property owner restrictingtheproperty'suse to a golf course,whichexpires in 2012.Aside from the fact that only the County canmake zoningchanges affectingthe use of the golf course, thisagreement isprobably anillegal document since it was never approvedbya majority of unit owners inBoca DelMar.Please see Exhibit 1, a letter from Sachs,Sax andKleinto the BDMIA dated 2/18/05, listingthe reasonswhy the amendment tothe originalDeclaration of Restrictions may beinvalid.Finally, the originalDeclaration of Restrictions providedthat saidrestrictions couldbe automatically extended beyond 12131/2012 for successive periods of 10 years and that any amendments must beapprovedby 75%of unit owners.So there isno "drop dead" date of 2012 andthe amended declaration referredtobyMrSiemens has never beenapproved byunit owners. Mr. Siemens refers to a mailingto homeowners that had positive feedbackWe don't know where he gets thisinformation.Public meetings for homeowners scheduledby theBDMIA Board to get input uniformly hadnegative feedback.Infact, Mr. McDermott, President of BDMIA, polled attendees at each meeting: allinattendance objected tothe development andexpresseda preference for the property toremain as a golf course or greenspace, witha public park or recreationfaciltiybeing other possibilities.The overwhelmingnegative feedbackisreflectedinthe petitions and resolutionsinthis package.They are signedby most of the communities around the golf course andrepresent more than 2,000 households.Finally, acknowledging the overwhelming opposition of the community. theBDM IABoard recentjy voted to oppose theproposed development.(See Exhibit 2) . Regarding AlternativeUses: Althou9hMr.Siemens maintains no viable use for the propertyhasbeenbrought forth,his view isunderstandable: the owner of the golf course hasnointerest inanalternative proposal because he wants tomake money bysellingtheproperty, andMrSiemens wantstomake money by buildinghouses. Should the County not oblige the developer once againbyrefusingtochange thezoning, alternativesshould beexplored.The golf course owner couldselltheproperty to the County or theBoca RatonBeach andParks district for use as a public park or recreationfacility or toa public/privatepartnership consisting of the BDMIA and a governmental entity at the current appraisedvalue.Or it couldberestoredbythe owners toits originaluse as a golf course or sold toa group of investors who could restoreit asa golf course.The Coalitionand the homeowners of BocaDelMar cannot make decisions controlling the future of the property;however, we have indicated to our representative, Cmmr. Abrams, the BeachandParks District andthe BDMIA that we would like towork with whomever to develop a creative solutionthat wouldbeto "the great benefit of thecommunity". For allthe above reasons, we respectfully request that the P,lanning andZoning Board andthe County Commissioners deny,once again,a proposal to buildhouses ontheMizner Trail Golf Course andprovide leadership tohelp finda permanent solution that willcontribute tothe qual ity of life inBocaDelMar,not detract fromit. The Second CoalitionAgainst Mizner Development R A L FBROO K E S,A T TOR N EY Board C ertified in Cit)',COlln(y and G OI'nable mcl1ner S) as to not destroy the generalplan e.g.Nelle v.LochHaven Homeowners' A!:OOcjatio,n,413 SJ.2d28 (Ra.1982);Holiday Pines Property Owners'Asoociation.Inc.v.Wetherington,596SJ,2d 284(Ra 4thDCA 1992).The originalplan of development for Boca DelMar required that Tracts 64-8 and64-C be dedicatedto the purpo!:e of a golf courre andcustomarilyrelated :3Ctivities.It is unrearonable for thecrnendmentsto entirely chcnge the cha-acter of Wihat was Originally prescribedby the Declarations. !:econd, 720.306(1 Xc),RoridaSatutes, limitstheabilityto amend Declarations. A-ior to JJly 1,2003, anamendment which affecteda "vestedrighr requiredunanimous conrent of alloftherecordowners aswell' asthe recordowners of liens.Effective lJly1,2003, 720.306(1 Xc),RoridaSatutes, was amended to preclude certain l:pecified actionsincluding providing that an amendment may not materially and cdver9:!ty alter the proportionate voting interest appurtenant to a parcelunless the record pa-celowner Cfldallrecord owners of liens oin in the executionof the amen,dment. RacaD alMar Latter 18. 2005 The addition of four hundred and 9Xty (460) prospective owners' with voting interests loul dmaterially ald adverre!y alter the proportionate voting interest of the current owners. Given that allrecord percelownersand allrecord owners oflien did not join in the execution f the amendment. 720.306(1 Rorida Satutes,may have beenviolated. SJuthCounty Coalition has authorized us to ajvire youof their position with respect ')amendments.SJuth County Coalition is maki ng demand that these amendments be 3S::indedandthattheAsrociationtal