HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Special Meeting_5/6/1982 r . I.
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF THE
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA
MAY 6, 1982 RECEIVED MAY 1 2 1981
A Special Council Meeting was held by the Village Council of the
Village of Tequesta, Florida at 7:00 P.M. , Thursday, May 6, 1982 in the Village
Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida. Councilmembers present were:
Mapes, Stoddard, Beddow, Brown and Little. Also present were Robert Harp,
Village Manager and John C. Randolph, Village Attorney.
Mapes called the meeting to order and advised that he had called the
Special Meeting in order to further consider various options that might be
available in regard to the suit with Turtle Creek Homeowners Association, Inc.
and the Village's counter claim pertaining to the Village's truck ordinance.
He said he had asked the Village Attorney to think about the situation and
report back to the Village Council at this Special Council Meeting.
The Village Attorney noted that the Council had not made a decision
on whether or not to dismiss the Village's counter claim prior to the April 27,
1982 Council Meeting and he believes the Council should look at the pros and
cons concerning dismissal of or continuing with the counter claim. He presented
an analysis of the pros and cons for the Councilmembers consideration and stated
he does not like to make policy decisions for the Council.
Mapes noted that if the Village lost the counter claim, the chances
are that the Village would have a difficult time having Turtle Creek included
in any additional suit and said suit would probably be only against Martin
County.
Stoddard asked the Village Attorney if Attorney Luttier had talked
to him about a continuance. The Village Attorney said no, but he would entertain
such a proposal. Stoddard asked if the counter claim would be kept on the same
basis and the Village Attorney replied yes, but this would only be a postpone-
ment, not a resolution of the matter, but he would like to reserve his decision
to postpone on legal points. Stoddard asked if this was not a case of the
judge saying his jurisdiction stopped at the county line and the Village
Attorney replied no, and that the Village's counter claim was an appropriate
action. He noted Turtle Creek has used this jurisdiction matter as part of
their defense of the counter claim and that the Village was successful in
opposing dismissal of the counter claim.
Brown said his concern is that if the Village is successful in getting
the construction gate opened in Martin County, how would construction traffic
be compelled to use the construction gate. Beddow noted that in any case, the
present ordinance would have to be amended. Brown said he could not see any
gain by dropping the counter claim.
�. .
5-6-82 - 2
Beddow said the time factor is important. If the Village should lose
the suit while apartments are under construction, the Village could have a
problem. He favors eliminating attack on the present ordinance. He believes
the likelihood of future attack on the ordinance is slim. He said he personally
hopes the decision makers in Turtle Creek would begin to take a less than
obstreperous viewpoint on the matter and thinks the Turtle Creek people's
prime consideration is that their present security system is not attacked.
He suggested that they be apprised that the Village would not go to Martin
County Commission or file suit in Martin County if the north or construction
gate would be opened now for use of construction traffic. Thus their security
system would not be attacked or Village ordinance attacked. It was his opinion
that the Turtle Creek people wanted a "world-wide" settlement. He reiterated
that the construction gate in Martin County should be opened now.
Little said the matter of providing security if the construction gate
was opened was discussed in many ways at the workshop meeting with Turtle Creek
representatives, such as remote control of the gate by the main security house.
He also noted that Jim Kirkwood, a resident of Turtle Creek stated positively
that the construction gate will never be opened. Little said he thinks the
Village should continue with the suit since the matter is in the third year
and approximately $15,000 has been expended on the matter to date. He asked
if the Village would get damages if they win the case and the Village Attorney
said no. He asked how long it would take to get moving again if the matter
was continued and the .Village Attorney said rescheduling should be discussed
by the Attorneys. Little said .he thinks the ordinance will be challenged by
some and he desires to continue with the counter claim and settle the matter
once and for all. The Village Attorney noted that Hartland's attorney is satis-
fied now that construction trucks can come in from west Country Club Drive
through Turtle Creek main gate.
Mapes asked if the Village asks the Martin County Commission to
provide for opening of the construction gate and are denied and then file suit
against Martin County, is it advantageous to the Village to have Turtle Creek
people in the suit. The Village Attorney said not necessarily, since the suit
would be an attack on the agreement between Martin County and Turtle Creek
for gate and fence on public right-of-way.
Stoddard advised he had been called several times by Turtle Creek
people who indicated their desire to end the matter as quickly as possible and
that they are going to seek a continuance. They seem concerned about the Village's
counter claim which, if successful, would cause the main security building at
the main entrance to be removed. Stoddard said he favors continuance as the
first step toward an out of court settlement. The Village Attorney said he
had not as yet received a formal request for continuance from Turtle Creek's
attorney and would like to reserve response until same is received.
5-6-82 - 3
Brown noted the Village had previously made overtures to Turtle Creek
people for resolving the matter and there was no reciprocity coming back in a
favorable manner.
The Village Attorney said we are only trying to get the construction
gate opened and obstructions of the main gate removed.
Beddow stated that he thought that the potential breach of the security
for the Turtle Creek area from the main gate may bring the Turtle Creek people
into favorably resolving the matter while apartment construction is going on.
He thinks we should tell the Turtle Creek people that we are going to the Martin
County Commission to request that they provide for the opening of the construction
gate for construction traffic and if this request is denied, we will file suit
against Martin County and that the voluntary opening of the construction gate by
the Turtle Creek people would be an easy out for them.
Mrs. Robert B. Moore stated she believes that the attitude of the Turtle
Creek people has changed for the better in regard to this matter since Ed Hall
is again active with the Association.
Mapes said he would be willing to drop the suit and counterclaim if
Turtle Creek would provide for opening of the construction gate and would recommend
that the Village Attorney discuss this with the Turtle Creek attorney and advis-
ing him that if Turtle Creek would not do this, the Village expects to file suit
against Turtle Creek Property Owners Association and Martin County Commission
within the next several months. In spite of the lack of cooperation from Turtle
Creek in the past, we should go back to them and try to get some agreement as to
opening and use of the construction gate.
The Village Attorney said he had the feeling of the Councilmembers and
will contact the Turtle Creek attorney and advise him of the Council's feeling in
this matter.
Beddow said the object is to get heavy construction traffic through
the construction gate (north gate) .
Little asked Beddow if he thought Rinkers or others might challenge
the ordinance.
It was the consensus of the Councilmembers that the Village should
make one last try to bring this matter to an amicable solution.
The Special Council Meeting was adjourned at 7:50 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Harp
RH:jf