Developer Sues Boca Raton Over Oceanfront Housing Permit Denial
The City Council unanimously denied a variance that would have opened the door for Azure Development to build a four-story duplex.
April 05, 2019 at 03:44 PM
5 minute read
Boca Raton officials were biased and trampled on a developer's due-process rights when they denied a permit to build a sprawling duplex on oceanfront land, a new lawsuit claims.
Azure Development LLC, a Delray Beach-based luxury home developer, asked permission to build a 14,270-square-foot, four-story duplex on a vacant half-acre parcel it owns at 2600 N. Ocean Blvd. Construction would require a city variance as exception to development regulations in that area.
The property is east of the coastal construction control line, a state-designated boundary intended to mitigate impacts on sand, dunes and turtles. In Boca Raton, construction east of the line is allowed only with a variance and after a development company shows its project won't be environmentally harmful.
Azure's lawsuit claims the city acted in a biased way on the variance denial and violated due process by not allotting its experts enough time to present their case at a public hearing. The city also didn't have competent substantial evidence to deny the application.
Azure is asking the Palm Beach Circuit Court to throw out a city resolution denying the variance. Unanimous rejections came Jan. 10 from the city environmental advisory board and Feb. 26 from the City Council.
“The city's unabashed institutional bias deprived petitioner of any semblance of due process as the resolution was a foregone conclusion long before Feb. 26, 2019,” attorney Roberto Vargas wrote in the complaint. “The hearings before the EAB and City Council were charades of due process that underscored the pervasive bias.”
Vargas, a shareholder at Jones Foster in West Palm Beach, filed the complaint March 28 with Robert Sweetapple, managing member at Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas in Boca Raton.
The city declined to address the allegations, saying it's reviewing the lawsuit and that doesn't comment on pending litigation.
The institutional bias allegation stems from statements by Mayor Scott Singer and council members Monica Mayotte and Andrea O'Rourke to voters about preserving beachfront property from development. The attorneys claim the three, who aren't defendants, made up their minds to deny Azure's request before a hearing.
Singer made his statement in a re-election video last summer, and Mayotte and O'Rourke made theirs in writing to voters, according to the complaint. Mayotte said she wants to uphold the preservation “legacy” created by previous city leaders.
In his defense, Singer on Friday denied the allegation he prejudged the proposal. He said his vote was based on facts showing the project would have an environmental impact.
“I voted based on the substantial evidence in the extensive record, including that on the impacts to the dunes, turtles and vegetation,” Singer said in an email.
Mayotte and O'Rourke didn't return requests for comment by deadline.
The city at one point considered acquiring the parcel and other oceanfront properties from private owners or by eminent domain to ensure their preservation from development.
A city-commissioned appraisal of the lot set its value at $7.2 million, assuming the variance was obtained. The lawsuit said Azure offered to sell the property to the city, but some council members balked at the price tag at a meeting last October.
The variance denial was done in “self-interest,” the complaint said. ”The city had every incentive to deny the requested variance to depress the value of the property for its own self-interest.”
The allegation of due process denial stems from how much time Azure and its experts were allotted to present their case.
Azure said the city denied its request for a two-hour council presentation and 15 minutes each to cross examine city experts. The city instead allotted Azure one hour to present and three minutes each for cross-examination.
Even with that, Azure argues it was rushed at both city meetings and didn't have time to present its turtle and dune vegetation experts.
The beach at the site is a nesting area for loggerhead, green and leatherback turtles. Azure said its lighting plan exceeded city requirements and would have had a minimal impact on the turtles. The city responded by saying “lighting and reflection of glass onto the turtle habitat from the proposed duplex is of critical concern,” according to the complaint.
“At the end of the day,” Vargas wrote, Azure's “evidence was irrelevant to the city as the city had predetermined that it would deny the variance regardless of the evidence presented.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All830 Brickell is Open After Two-Year Delay That Led to Winston & Strawn Pulling Lease
3 minute readMiami Lawyers Beat Other Local Sectors, Attorneys Elsewhere in Office Usage
3 minute read'Would've Been Snoring Without Ya': Fort Lauderdale Jury Awards $4.5 Million in Condo Investment Spat
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250