HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 8C_1/11/1990 PI r.
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
..• _-. Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive
• ��, Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6200
FAX: (407) 575-6203
M C. �.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Village Council
FROM: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager /7/- -
DATE: January 5, 1990
SUBJECT: Report on Annexation Conflict with the Town of Jupiter
Attached hereto, please find a copy of Village of Tequesta
Resolution No. 9-87/88 including the Tequesta Reserve Annexation
areas map. This Resolution was adopted by the Village Council on
May 12, 1988 following many meetings with County Commissioner Karen
Marcus and the City Managers of the various North County
municipalities. By designating those areas for future annexation,
Tequesta exhibited intergovernmental coordination and cooperation
by helping to identify potential areas of conflict relative to
annexation. Further, as you will recall, these reserve annexation
areas provide for the future Tequesta to be squared-off in a
logical fashion.
In the early part of December, I was advised by a news reporter
that the Town of Jupiter had approved on first reading an
ordinance annexing certain parcels of land located in Section 27
which is that area designated by Tequesta for future annexation
lying westerly of the "Tequesta Country Club peninsula" . Upon
confirming this, I formally requested the Palm Beach County
Planning, Zoning and Building staff to adhere to the Palm Beach
County Interim Annexation Policy, as well as solicited the
officers of the Palm Beach Countywide Planning Council for any
support that they may have to protect the interests of Tequesta in
this matter. Additionally, the Village Attorney attended the
January 2nd Town Council Meeting of Jupiter to object to the
proposed annexation scheduled for second reading on that night.
Subsequently, the Palm Beach County staff has adhered to the
Palm Beach County Interim . Annexation Policy and have determined
that the proposed annexations of the Town of Jupiter are contrary
to various provisions of Florida Statutes relative to annexation.
In this regard, staff and legal counsel of Palm Beach County
appeared before the Town Council of Jupiter on January 2nd to
object to the proposed Jupiter annexation. During this time, I met
with Griff Roberts to discuss this matter and to seek a means of
amicably settling this issue. The most positive item to evolve
from this meeting was to agree to meet again as may be needed.
Memorandum to Village Council
RE: Annexation Conflict
January 5, 1990
Page 2 -
On January 2nd, the Town Council agreed to postpone second
reading of the Ordinance annexing the applicable lands until
January 16th to allow additional time to attempt to resolve the
concerns of the Village and Palm Beach County. As of this writing,
a meeting is- being schedule for sometime during the week of
January 8th to review these matters.
Thus, we have been successful in the sense that we were able to
postpone finalization of the Jupiter Annexation Ordinance until we
have had opportunity to review the matter with the Village
Council. As I previously stated, I feel that our long term
annexation goals are logical, in that they square-off our ultimate
boundaries, even though to do so would require special legislation
to enable a municipality to cross County lines. However, this
remains a goal of Tequesta as well. Conversely, there are many
areas of mutual concern between the Village and the Town of Jupiter
which we may be able to convince Jupiter to look upon favorably in
return for relinquishing our claim to certain land areas west of
the northwest fork of the Loxahatchee River. I will be glad to
review these possibilities with you, if so desired.
I need your direction on this issue in order to properly
represent your interest in this regard.
TGB/mk
Attachment
r
_. . N r
('
• RESOLUTION NO. 9-87/88 . (. , '
. A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE, VILLAGE OF
TEQUESTA, FLORIDA, STATING ITS POSITION ON ANNEXATION i '
OF UNINCORPORATED LANDS. .
. ' WHEREAS, the Village of Tequesta Charter authorizes .the
Village to change its territorial -limits,- either by , ! •
annexation or contraction, . in a manner prescribed by Chapter. !
171, Florida Statutes; and . .
• WHEREAS, Section 4.02 (29) of the Village Charter '
empowers ; the Village to annex such lands ' into the
territorial limits of the Village; provided• that said land '
proposed to be annexed lies within the "natural boundaries"
of the Village; and
WHEREAS, on March 29, 1988 the. Village Council . ,
authorized appropriate measures necessary to amend Section i .
4.02 ( 29 ) of the Village Charter, undertake '.appropriate 2 .
•
' study efforts and amend the Village Comprehensive Plan in .. . �
order to accommodate those -additional areas desired for
• annexation, generally described as those portions of
Sections 22, 26 and all of Section 27, lying westerly of the
northwest fork of the Loxahatchee River; and
. WHEREAS, it is the annexation ,policy of the Village to'
. encourage ' proactive interjurisdictional planning . for . ! .
annexation to reduce annexation conflicts, to encourage ' •
coordinated planning for the provision of capital facilities
and services for proposed. annexation areas, to facilitate
orderly transition . of service provision, to discourage the i "
creation of enclaves and to actively pursue the elimination '
of existing enclaves.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF
THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA:
• Section 1., The above recitals' are hereby ratified and
• - confirmed.
Section 2. The Village Manager is. hereby authorized to '
undertake actions necessary ' to facilitate the annexation
policy of the Village, •either independently or in ,
conjunction with the Village Council, whichever is '
appropriate. '
Section 3. The Tequesta Reserved Annexation Areas Map, •
. a copy of which is attached• hereto and made "a part hereof
and incorporated by reference herein, .depicts those areas
currently desired by, 'the "Village of Tequesta for future .
annexation and as such, is hereby approved and may be
disseminated as needed.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION ,was offered by Councilmember' '
Edward C . Howell who moved its adoption. The motion was
seconded by Counci,lmemberWilliam E . Burckart and upon being,
put to a vote, the vote . was .as follows:
FOR, ADOPTION ' • ' AGAINST ADOPTION"
Ron T. Mackail . :
Joseph N. Capretta
William E. Burckart
• . Edward C. ' Howell
i
•
. • •
•
. , .
The Mayor thereupon declared the foregoing resolution .
duly. passed and adopted this 12th day of May , 1988..
•
. . •
MAYOR OF TEQUESTA
•
• •
•
• Ron T. Mackail
• •
ATTEST:
•
•
•
•
Bill c. asc ens -
Village Cle
210 fililitarg Emil 1,
vis itltpliont 407/T4S-5134
Bupittr, i►Iariba 33458 "
?,* .ig s *: part atilt. 40T/7454201
' q';"- /tltfax 407/745.4545
R -
ZIIi of lupiter
December 29, 1989
Mr. Jan Winters
County Administrator
Palm Beach County Governmental Center
P. 0. Box 1989
West Palm Beach, FL 33402
Re: County Planning Division's position on Jupiter Annexations •
Dear Jan:
Please be advised that as. .a result of the County Planning
Division's position on behalf of Palm Beach County concerning the
acreage the Town of Jupiter is in process of annexing on the Palm
Beach County/Martin County line, Town staff and I together with
the Town Attorney have considered the County's position for
purposes of developing a recommendation to our Town Council for
their action on January 2nd. For this reason, I felt it ap-
propriate to communicate directly with you as County Administra-
tor for your handling and/or referral of this matter as you may
choose.
Speaking for the Town administration and pursuant to
recommendations we are developing for Town Council regarding this
matter, it is necessary that I address a couple of areas of
concern that we have with the position taken by the County. One
concern deals with the County's annexation policy itself, and the
other deals with possible oversights by County staff in reaching
its conclusions on this subject,. All comments are being offered
in the spirit of constructive observation and/or criticism with a
desire to reach a mutual understanding between the Town and Palm
Beach County on any differences that may now exist.
First, with regard to the County's existing annexation policy, we
recognize the County's right to express its views and even to
pursue court action as a party of interest to annexations
affecting unincorporated Palm Beach County. This is the same
right given to property owners who may be affected by a
particular annexation. Beyond this acknowledgment, we have a
fundamental difference with the enforcement section of the
County's annexation policy which implies that the County has
authority over municipalities relative to these issues. We are
of the opinion that the enforcement provision of your annexation
policy is merely a restatement of a state law. Further, we are
not aware of any provision within the state law that gives the
County any authority over municipalities in annexation
differences. Likewise, your enforcement provision's reference to
Chapter 163 .01 of Florida statutes is a reference to permissive
legislation that has no mandatory provisions relative to County
authority. This legislation permits interlocal agreements be-
tween affected parties. We are agreeable to considering
additional interlocal agreements on annexation provided that it
is understood that such an agreement is purely voluntary on the
part of our municipality and is not by mandate of state law.
Further, we would encourage the County to reconsider the
provision within the enforcement policy that calls for the County
to automatically file a lawsuit against a municipality to enforce
the requirements of Chapter 171. Such a provision appears to be
presumptuous and does not recognize the merits that may apply to
each case individually. Additionally, it presumes that the
County has an "official oversight" roll to play relative to
municipal annexations. With due regard to the County, we do not
concur that state law assigns such rights to the County to the
exclusion of municipal home rule. . Of course if the County has
specific statutory provisions that you can cite giving you these
authorities, we would request that they be provided to us.
The second area of concern pertains to conclusions by the County
Planning Division on the subject annexation as well as the
erroneous basis for their comments regarding a referenced annex-
ation reserve area. The Planning Division concluded that the
subject parcel is not contiguous with our existing municipal
boundaries under their interpretation of state law. Although we
do not agree with that interpretation, we are confident that this
concern will become a moot point and be alleviated in the very
near future.
Concerning the erroneous basis for the Planning Division's .
conclusion regarding an annexation reserve area, I refer to a
statement within the referenced December 14th correspondence to
wit: "Staff is also concerned that the parcel appears to be
located in the Village of Tequesta's annexation reserve area.
creating an annexation conflict area. " This statement is of
considerable concern to us for several reasons. Namely, the
County Planning Division should be aware that state law no longer
recognizes annexation reserve areas for any community. Secondly,
if annexation reserve areas were recognized, if the date of
adoption of such a reserve area were the determining factor of
priority, then Jupiter would have priority since we adopted a
resolution establishing this as our planned area on May 17, 1988,
whereas Tequesta adopted theirs some seventeen months later on
October 12, 1989. Third, as previously indicated, we see no
legal basis for the County to become involved in municipal
conflicts. In addition to our concern about the County's
tendency to inject itself in areas involving two municipalities,
it is particularly bothersome when such a position is taken based
upon erroneous or incomplete data.
2
There are other major considerations in the differences between
Jupiter and Tequesta over the subject property that we have dis-
cussed and will continue to discuss with Tequesta if necessary.
However, as a matter of information to you, following are some of
Jupiter's reasons for proceeding with this annexation:
The property owners of the subject property have petitioned
us for annexation.
The subject property is not even contiguous to the corporate
boundaries of Tequesta.
Tequesta's only access to the subject property is via Martin
County.
The Town of Jupiter has a water line extended through and
serving this area.
The transportation network serving the area is through
Jupiter.
The social and commercial interchange between the subject
property and the adjoining municipality would clearly relate
the property more directly to Jupiter than Tequesta. .
For these reasons, the Town of Jupiter's ability to provide
service to the area is much greater than is the Village of
Tequesta's.
Finally, I would express additional concerns relative to the
basis for Palm Beach County's involvement in this annexation
issue. Unless the County can present some heretofore unknown
police authority over municipalities, we can see no basis for the
County's involvement in this annexation matter. More
specifically, the County is not suffering the loss of any tax
revenues since you receive taxes the same from incorporated
residents as you do unincorporated residents; the County is not
losing any service delivery to the subject area except for
sheriff's department service which will result in less
territorial responsibility for the sheriff's office than
currently exists. All other areas of concern would seem to be
the responsibility of the municipality that annexes this property
into its corporate boundaries. And, as you know, this is all
very clearly provided in state law.
To reiterate, the Town does differ with the County regarding
governmental authority in matters of annexation, however, in the
spirit of intergovernmental cooperation, I wish to advise that
Town staff will be recommending to Town Council at the January
2nd meeting that the ordinances affecting annexation of the
subject properties be modified to show an effective date of such
annexation to be January 16, 1990 in lieu of the intended January
2nd date. This will allow a two week period of time between the
January 2nd meeting and the meeting of the 16th for the Town and
3
Palm Beach County to consider an interlocal agreement that meets
the needs of both entities . It is in that spirit of cooperation
that I conclude these remarks and with the hope that between now
and January 16th, the Town and County will be able to reach
accord on this subject. Your assistance in helping to achieve
this result will be appreciated.
Yours truly,
/42117:4V
Griff H. Roberts
Town Manager
GHR:mp
cc: Mayor and Council, Town of Jupiter
Marty Hodgkins, Jupiter Community Development
Jerry Skrandel, Jupiter Town Attorney
Mayor and Council, Village of Tequesta
Thomas G. Bradford, Village of Tequesta
John C. Randolph, Tequesta Village Attorney
Board of County Commissioners
Bob Weisman, Administration
Robert Banks, County Attorney's Office
Donna Kristaponis, Planning, Zoning and Building
Richard F. Morley, Planning Division
Bob Kraus, ERM
Kathy Owens, Fire/Rescue
Diana Newcomer, Sheriff's Department
Alan Ennis, Traffic Engineering Division
C. Tim Russell, Water Utilities
Richard Roberts, OFMB
Keith Stahley, Zoning Division
William Whiteford, Planning Division
Karyn Walega, Planning Division
Carmen Annunziato, Countywide Planning Council
4
•
•
•
• • \•
K 13 TEQUESTA RESERVED
: :
•
ANNEXATION gj . A AREAS MAP
.. ..,441(Nlir , .
......,, s,
• •
i ,
. .
•
. .
.„,, 1.
.. . •kii \\ . . •
VI
. �r \\\\\• \\\♦ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ti\\\\\\♦. . .•. . ‘
. N, I ,riptlemist.- • „, ,,„ „„ .....\\„„„\\;-- . „,„,„..„\\*\;;,;;;\\;;;;;;;;;;; , \ �\
\\\\\• \\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\•\\\\\\\ \ I \\
\\ ♦\�\\\\\\ \\\\\�\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\�\\\\\\ \\\\\\\ \\ \\ . '
\♦ ♦\\\\\\\\\\ �� \\\\\\\\\\ \\ \\\\\v\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ �\����� • \ \\
\ \\ \\\\\\\\\\♦ \� \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\ \\\\•n\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\ \\\\\ \\ \\♦ •
\♦ \\\\\\\\\\\ ..\\\\ \\ ♦\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\\v\\\\\\\\\ \\\\� \\ \\ \\\ \\\ •
•
\ \\ \\\\\\\\ \,\ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\v\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\ti ♦\\\ \\\ \\\\\
\ \♦ ♦\\\\\\ \ \ \♦ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\. \ \\\,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\\\\ \\\ \\\\\ ♦\\\\\\ \ ♦\\♦ ♦\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\,\\\\\\\\\\.\\ \ \, ♦\\V \ \\\\ \ \\♦\\\\\\ \ \\\\♦ \\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\ \ \\.\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\•\\ \\\\♦ \\\\ \ \\\\•
\\� \ �. . \\\♦ \\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\ •S \\\ \ \\%\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\•
\\\\ \ \ \ \\\\\ ♦\\\ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\•\\\ \\\\� \sue\\ \\ \
\ \\\ \ \\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\\ \ \\\\\.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'\\♦ \\\\ \\\\\ \\\ \•
\ ♦\\\♦ \\ \ ♦\\♦ \\\\\ \\\\\\ \ \\\\,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'\\\\ ♦\\\ \\\\\ \\ ♦\\\ \ \ • \\ \\\ ♦\\\\\ \\\\ \\ \\\\v\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'\\\\ ♦\\\ ♦\\\\♦ \.\ '\\\ ' '
•
♦ ; . \4 11: - \\\\\ ♦\ � \\ \\\\,N\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\,\\\\♦ \\\ \\\\\\ '\\ \\\
♦\\\\ \\
\\ \ \ ♦\\\\\\ \ \\\\ \\\\�\\\\\\\\\ \\♦ \\\ ♦\\
�� \ \\\ ♦\\ \\\\•
4� \\\\\\\\.\\\ .�� \\\ \\ \\\\\\,\\ ` LEG_
\\ \\\\\\\\\\,\\ ti �\ \\\ \\\ \\•
,.\\ \ \\ \ \\ \\\ \ \\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\ \\\\ .� \\
\\\\\ \\ \ MB
\\\\\ \\\\\.\\\\\ a1►1► ::..... \\\ \\\\ \\\\i. \\ \\\\\\\•\\ \. \A\\\\\ \\ \\\\ \\ . ��m \\\\\\N..,\\\\\\\\�\ \\ \\ \\\•A ' • • .ri.22: 4,:;:,',%" ,, , -..,,:«:, ' <:�:,A..\ i ' \ \::'•,; • D \\ \\\ \\\\�\ RESERVED ANNEXATION
\\\\\\\\\\ \\ \ \\ \\, `.-.y:�. ;` �..`�J:�.; iy`2-u.,. y° �Csak :`�:a:`::&.s1:- .. \\ \\\,\\\\\\\\ \\\ \\ \\\ \ ' `4 � �,\ . • \\ � \ y.. ,* , > \\ \\\ ` AREAS-,,•-. -\k• • \\ b :„.,..,, ,., ..,-...-.s.,E Os%
I pp•• . \ \\\ \\\ \\ \\\\ `2` ., ':'` . . r'a. `,A.A\\ ��. Fi;>1�>C`�A "��•tis \\\ `\\\\\ ?� ; \\....„,,\\.: >,,;... >. EXISTING VILLAGE OF......
,„„,„.:, id,_,,,,,,„„:„.,„.„.
\ ,..„.„,. ...„..,„•..
\\\\\\\ \\\ \\\\\ \ ..�a $.� ' 'P. „... ...,...
.\ Z .:,.. cc • i•
\:£z. .ti..:.`:<: c \ \ :.::•.,„.. •::::::.
gp
::: TEOUESTA
•
„.•.,...,..,
,,,,,:„.,,z.,..,...a k*:'.,F4
I\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\\ \\\ . ? : 1T.::; ,�3=:` o t \\ w: '.. ` ��,. ° a.\\\
. lam ,...
,.. „„:„.
\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\ """ ,��� \\\ `i`£—'.: kD\'` ':: • ,.
O \\ A�� q w >.�" `...: �'
\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\ \\\\ \•.,4: . ''?,:At-.. �•• . `\ \\ , .`.pw:•.Si.?.. ~�• \\\ \
vocs.„\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\:::\ ` V :\\\`.Y.tr. , ;.. .:: :,': : \ \': :: `a...� ' 4211\ \\ \
•
\\\ \ \ ; �_�':::° ; : :. > >: a �> _ \ \
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ >:>: ::::..::::: : \ .
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\446" <'\ v •.. . ... ::::: \. . i . \\...‘
i•+�• •\; ,�''i
!...7"...!........i....
..,.,.:::.„,....,:. ::::::„ .: .. .,.,:::,
mill,
a; \\\\
..
• � pbookrv.k14... 7
IIN
:.: :
m..,:._,%*i.i: :,11,-",...,::- !.1,,::
..
,,,,,:ls.'''‘...„..,..:,.,::: ::x. ....:\s,
if\\\ s ...... till.11%111)64 rIPIII -
e,----, 3 Inn . .
h I
Nam 'IP I illiK
� ali.I ,,
41�f• `� lt on:
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT S
• RIM
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
. tte. -• : . 1.ii: 1\\‘\
..,i i..iz v‘\‘,,,,,.k...,\:‘,:,i,. \\\,..,,,,,,
. lftillik,
E
legy WORTH ROAD•LAKE WORTH,Fu. set•
ma .m COHBULTMl4 PLAMIERS/ENONEERS /SURVEYORS