HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 8A_1/25/1990 • it yfrik
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
•
.• Q Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive
• ��, t Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6200
FAX: (407) 575-6203
M EMO RANDUM
TO: Village Council
FROM: Thomas G. Bradford, Village .Manager `-'77-53
DATE: January 19, 1990
SUBJECT: Update on Annexation Conflict with
Town of Jupiter in Section 27
F. S. 171.031 ( 11 ) states in pertinent part that "contiguous
means that a substantial part of a boundary of the territory sought
to be annexed by a municipality is coterminus with a part of the
boundary of the municipality. " The key word here is "substantial" .
In my opinion, the Town of Jupiter annexation of lands lying within
Section 27 do not meet this requirement of State law. Jupiter' s
token attempt at complying with this requirement by annexing a
drainage ditch owned by Northern Palm Beach County Water Control
District and a patch of common grounds owned by the Shores
Homeowner's Association also fails to bring this overall annexation
into compliance with this specific requirement of State Statutes.
Sections 27 and 26 west of the northwest fork of the
Loxahatchee River have been designated as Tequesta's future reserve
annexation area. This designation may have no validity under State
law relative to annexation. However, this designation was
undertaken in the name of intergovernmental coordination and
cooperation to help facilitate proper planning, identify potential
areas of conflict while proposing rational "squared-off" boundaries
for Tequesta's future corporate limits. This effort was a clear
departure from the past with its lack of foresight and planning
which provided for the resulting incomprehensible "helter-skelter"
boundaries throughout Palm Beach County. The Village Council is
fully justified in designating future boundaries and, likewise,
would be in amending the same. However, ultimately Tequesta must be
willing to defend its planning actions whenever a legal basis for
doing so exists. As a footnote, it is interesting to note that
Jupiter's argument that Tequesta' s claim to these lands by virtue of
our reserve annexation area "is without legal standing" is totally
contrary to the position that they took relative to Palm Beach
Gardens proposed annexation of Frenchmen Creek lands north of
Donald Ross Road.
Memorandum to Village Council
RE: Update on Annexation Conflict
January 19, 1990
Page 2 -
Palm Beach County has implied that if Jupiter and they
successfully enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement addressing
annexation of all areas west of the river, that they may not file
suit in this matter. The Village has thirty (30) days from January
16th to appeal this annexation on the technical requirements of F. S.
171. The Village Council may wish to do so to protect its rights in
this manner in the event that Palm Beach County and Jupiter fail to
satisfactorily address this matter via an Intergovernmental
Agreement which may cause this annexation to ultimately meet the
requirements of F.S. 171.
Correspondence from the Village Attorney, a summary of his
remarks to the Jupiter Town Council, and a map indicating the areas
annexed by Jupiter are attached hereto for your reference.
TGB/mk
Attachments
•
S.
/- -' .
!S , K fl TEQUESTA RESERVED
le
Wilf
ANNEXATION AREAS MAP
+ \\ \\ \ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\\\\" . \\\\\\\\;\\ .\s.
s.
\\ \\\\\\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\ .\ \\\\\\\\\♦\\ \\\\\\\•
,,,..
\\\\\\ \.\ \\ SO
\ .\ \\\\\\\\ \ \ \\\\.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\ \ ::� ♦\ \\\ :\ \\\\\\\ \ \\\\ \\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\ \ ‘,
‘,
\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\ s \\\ • \\.\\\\\\\\\\.♦ \\ \\ \\":::s\%\ `\\\ \\ \\\ \ \\\ \\\\ \\\\\\ \::::r:::::,:,,„ , •::: :\\\
\\
\\
\ itRn \z„\„,. ` � ♦♦• \\\ \\\\\ \\♦ ♦\\\\\ ♦\ \\\
11 \ ,�� \\\\\\\ : \\\ ♦\ ♦\ \\\�••• \\ \ik
\\\\ \♦ \*\\ :\`::::::::::\ � `: ::�::: \ \\♦ ♦\\ \\• LEGEND:
i(*Ivick.,\I
\\ \\\\\\\ \\ \\ \\♦\ ? gll I a
t : .\\l4 \ •.: ` \ s \:\ \ \...A jai\\ \ \ \\ \ '_` \\ . \ \ ` - \\ \\ \\\ \\\\ \ �� ` RESERVED ANNEXATION♦\\ \\\\ \ \\\ \ V "P. + \\ \\\ 1 AREA$
l ♦ ,.►7A `� \\ \\ ♦\� :` .-.ram - �\ \ \\ l .• J'_ ♦\\ \: :
\\\ ♦\\ \\\ \\\\\ \ r, ( ,. \: ` a ‘:....„...:�; EXISTING VILLAGE OF
4.
. :.• :::\::\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ "" ` . '''''' ' ' ''''. ' \A-C'''.,;
(4401/4 :=,.,41 .,
... 7,
di\•%\‘-‘‘‘‘‘Z.evi lit.t..iiiiimingh141411411t 6.11
I1/'III \\ \\\ \ \\\\\\\ \�\\\ \\\\ .y ' .�ad !*•
• \t q,r_11. -1.113U
N Aiii1111011 \\\♦\\\\ \\\,,,,„„\\ \\ \ y,�
•
III
N �V \\ ::- . 4111
' .....,,...4„. _ , 'I�
4111* .
IIIIIIIl llli .I__ 11111 111...Plii''
•
We , . e
�
11111
Alli
miu �� lrr, III 01,IF
.L _I
eiiiiiiiiilts. A-Ndir I il(1)1C 111111%41
• • .14
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT II .
•
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS,INC.
•
•
Ele•-21 ma LAKE WORTH Me•uut woIRK M sw$•
•
am/w..., COMSULTNO KAMIEMN/[MONICRi/summons.
•
•
:ti r
I,
S X D TEQUESTA RESERVED
WIP.P.
ANNEXATION AREAS MAP
le;
, is ,
•
SO
1
WI . \\.♦♦\\\\\ ..♦.. \ .\.\♦ \\\ .\\ \\\ \\\..\.\ ..\\\\\\. . .♦
...\\ \..\\ ...\♦ ...\..\\ .\\\\\\.. .\.\... \.\ sZ.\.♦... ..
v .. .ILI",.\..\\.\ \\.\\ \\\\\. \\♦\.\.\ \\\\\\\\ \\\'\\ \.♦\\\\ .
'• -
.. .♦♦\♦♦\♦\♦♦♦♦.\• \ii. �AsD3 ♦\...... .
zz\
V. .. \\♦. ♦= :,,, ♦♦♦\..♦\\ \... . .\ ......\.... ..• . \.\\♦ ♦♦.♦ . \`\
'.� ♦ \i..\", . .\ .. . \♦♦\.. .... .....
inic ♦�\ ♦. LEGEND:��♦♦ \♦`.\ \\ ♦5" � ...,:.♦........�� .. \. ..\..\. ` ♦\\ \.\ ....\....\♦ 0►1 ♦\. .♦.♦\\\ �1N. ♦♦♦ ♦.\. .......
♦\\♦\ ♦. •\♦.\ \ • ..cam wMM1\.♦ .♦..♦\.
\\ \\♦\\.♦ .. . .\ ♦♦ �. -♦. ;'\. . ;•c..• \\ .♦ ♦.♦ .\.. . RESERVED ANNEXATION
\NI \. ..♦ SEISEN.\ \\ ‘nn .i. S Y .r .��:••\. it '^ ;• ��•'•
-4i3*I.l
�"\ EXISTING VILLAGE OF
\ \\\ ( - _ �. ♦♦♦. �Y4 TEOUESTA
a.:a gh.?"--4 3&(::.:",*s4A-.,:‘,.
III11 111 \..... .. �. ... , .. 9 k :
lesm. •‘, •
11111111111111111111.E .\\\`\"`\ """.` ��.r-�! .
li .."::.-73''. . . ..
.._ _ i , 1 \ .' '''....11‘. ti-S:41:. \\\.:s l`! , If .„„5„,.. Artrlil ,,,
1
14,_______,.._ ti, .
4418111111.k..,NM
11111 _ -...
� �� r�J .
•• �'r.. .it I I _M
• ••
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS,INC. •
E I am tJVU MOWN ROAD•ULU WORM.11%A.as..t.
ttttt�r�� CONSULTING PLAMEAM/INOI U U/•uArlrOAL
JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSTON & STUBBS, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS
• . FLAGLER CENTER TOWER
505 SOUTH FLAGLER•DRIVE
ELEVENTH.FLOOR
• P.O. DRAWER E R.BRUCE JONES
LARRY B ALEXANDER MICHAEL T KRANZ WEST PALM BEACH,FLORIDA 33402-3475 1
1580
GEORGE H.BAILEY BLAIR R LITTLEJOHN.III HENRY F LILIENTHAL
KEVIN C BEUTTENMULLER JOHN M.L.ROUX (407)859 3000 I902 I
kV
MICHAEL D.BROWN JOHN BLAIR MCCRACKEN FAX:(407)832 1454
' RUTH P.CLEMENTS PAMELA A.MCNIERNEY
SCOTT M.COLTON TIMOTHY E MONAGHAN HARRY ALLSON JOHNSTON
MARGARET L COOPER GUY RABIDEAU . IE55-1967
REBECCA G.DOANE JOHN C.RANDOLPH
RANDY D.ELLISON ANDREW R.ROSS
L MARTIN FLANAGAN STEVEN J ROTHMAN RETIRED
SCOTT'A.GLAZIER PETER A.SACHS WILLIAM A.FOSTER
LORI E HANDELSMAN JOEL T.STRAWN WRITER'S DIRECT LINE:
SCOTT G HAWKINS SIDNEY A STUBBS.JR. .
THORNTON M.HENRY ALLEN-R TOMLINSON O ^ OTHER LOCATION
PETER S HOLTON JOHN S TAMPER
HARRY A.JOHNSTON,II MICHAEL P WALSH n 54 N.E.FOURTH AVE.
J.A.JURGENS H ADAMS WEAVER
MARK B.KLEINFELD PAUL C WOLFE 1' .! DELRAY BEACH,FLORIDA 33483
CHARLES B.KOVAL MARC S WOOLF • \ YIL� OF
January 17, 1990QUESTA `\
•8
JA N 1 81oqnt. — . .
•
Mr. Thomas G. Bradford MANAGERS ;.,
Village Manager OFFICE
Village of Tequesta °0 -.\•
Post Office Box 3273 -UI 1 1 1 '>
Tequesta, Florida 33469
• RE: Village 'of Tequesta/Jupiter Annexation
Jupiter Ordinances 59-89; 60-89 and 61-89
Our File No. 13153. 1
Dear Tom:
As a result of the Town of Jupiter's final reading of the above
referenced Ordinances, we will now need direction from the Village
Council as to how they wish to proceed in this matter. It is my
understanding that Palm Beach County is going to work with Jupiter
to see whether or not they can enter into an interlocal agreement
which is satisfactory to the county and to Jupiter. If such an
interlocal agreement is worked out, it appears that Palm Beach
County will not litigate the matter of the annexation.
The Village Council should decide the course of action it wishes to
take in regard to this matter. In the event the Council wants to
attempt to challenge the annexation it must do so within thirty
days of the adoption of the Ordinance, pursuant to Chapter 171 of
the Florida Statutes.
Enclosed for your information and the information of the Village
Council is a summary of my remarks to the Jupiter Town Council.
Sincerely
hn . Randolph
JCR/ss
Enclosure
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 17, 1990
SUBJECT: Village of Tequesta - Proposed Annexation by Jupiter
The point to be made is not whether or not the Town of Jupiter
is imposing upon Tequesta's reserve annexation area. In fact, for
purposes of our discussion here tonight, I think it would be
worthwhile to completely divorce that factor from this discussion.
For purposes of argument, I would like the Commission to presume
that indeed there is no legal right of Tequesta to this reserve
annexation area. Neither is there any legal right that the Town of
Jupiter has to this area. We should also remove from discussion
any philosophical argument as to whether or not Tequesta has any
claim to this property in the future, or whether Jupiter has any
claim to same. The issue rather is the appropriateness from a
legal standpoint and from a planning standpoint of the proposed
annexation.
Florida Statute Chapter 171 describes the method and manner by
which a voluntary annexation may take place. In order for a
voluntary annexation to take place substantial contiguity must
exist between the annexing community and the area desired to be
annexed. Certainly substantial contiguity does not exist where
there is only a point to point meeting between the properties, as
1
is the case here. Neither is the area sought to be annexed
reasonably compact with the Town of Jupiter. This also is a
requirement of Chapter 171.
Why would the Village of Tequesta object to what may be cited
by some as technical requirements which do not affect the Village
of Tequesta? The fact is that the legislature adopted the
annexation statute so as to provide an orderly method of
annexation. This was done not only to insure proper planning, but
also to take into consideration the future rights of other parties.
For instance, there may come a time where it makes a great deal of
sense for the Village of Tequesta to seek annexation of properties
in the northeastern portion of Section 27. If Jupiter is allowed
to begin annexing properties in a premature fashion it could very
easily foreclose opportunities which may exist for the Village of
Tequesta in the future. Additionally, third parties, other than
the Town of Jupiter and the Village of Tequesta, may be affected by
allowing annexation to take place in a manner contrary to Florida
Statute. Third parties may find themselves in the future in a
situation, because of Jupiter's annexation policies, that they are
only contiguous to the Town of Jupiter and even though they may
wish to annex in to the Village of Tequesta, it may be that the
property owner will have no choice. The property owner either
remains unincorporated or annexes to the Town of Jupiter.
2
Additionally, to allow annexation in this manner could very easily
create a situation where enclaves of unincorporated Palm Beach
County will be established.
This is not a matter of . who is best equipped to serve the
needs of the property owners wishing to be annexed. This is rather
a situation of appropriate planning, fairness between
municipalities and legal consistency. Appropriate planning would
indicate that annexation should proceed in an orderly manner so as
to assure contiguity, compactness and that enclaves will not be
created.
The issue of fairness between municipalities would dictate
that adjoining communities not attempt to annex properties in a
fashion which does not meet normal requirements relating to
compactness, contiguity, et cetera, so as to foreclose the
reasonable opportunity in the future of that adjoining municipality
to annex properties in a reasonable manner.
Finally, as to the legal issues, they are quite clear. As set
forth in Chapter 171, the proposed annexation does not meet the
definitions of contiguity or compactness at this time.
3
On the basis of these arguments the Village is of the opinion
that your proposed actions are improper and premature. We would
hope that each of our communities could get together, in the spirit
of cooperation, and work out any disagreements it may have in
regard to proposed future annexation areas. Absent that, however,
our objection is not necessarily based upon any legal right to a
future annexation nor is it necessarily based on any philosophical
argument supporting Tequesta's rights to future annexation.
Tequesta's argument is based rather upon those issues which we have
addressed and the respect of each community's rights to annex
properties in the future in a manner which is orderly and which
meets the requirements of good planning and the intent and dictates
of law.
4