Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fluedra Submerged Land Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects special‑magistrate recommendation on disputed submerged land at 3000 NE 8th Ave.
Summary
By a 4–1 vote the Boca Raton City Council adopted a resolution rejecting a special magistrate’s nonbinding recommendation under Section 70.51, Florida Statutes, on about 4.04 acres of submerged property adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway; the council also discussed executive sessions and related court cases.
The Boca Raton City Council on Tuesday adopted Resolution 81‑20‑25, rejecting a special magistrate’s nonbinding recommendation issued under Section 70.51 of the Florida Statutes (the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act, FLUEDRA) concerning approximately 4.04 acres of predominantly submerged property at 3000 Northeast Eighth Avenue.
City staff recommended the council reject the magistrate’s recommendation and adopt a resolution to that effect; the action provides a clear and prompt administrative decision rather than allowing the 45‑day statutory period to expire by operation of law.
City Attorney Koehler explained that the FLUEDRA process gives a special magistrate authority to issue a recommendation after mediation but that the council retains “full authority with regard to the magistrate’s recommendation, to either accept, modify, or reject.” Staff and city attorney recommended rejection. The council adopted the rejection by a recorded vote: Singer — yes; Necklace/Natless — yes; Trucker — yes; Wagner — yes; Thompson — no. Final tally: 4–1.
The property owner and its attorney addressed the council before the vote seeking adoption of the special magistrate’s recommendation. Attorney Hope Calhoun, representing the owner, urged the council to adopt the magistrate’s findings and nullify a 2024 code‑enforcement order related to unpermitted landfilling, saying the magistrate’s recommendation was supported by “overwhelming evidence presented at the special magistrate hearing.” The property’s managing member, William Swaim, described a long history of disputes and litigation and said mediation had cleared “at least 90%” of outstanding items.
Council members debated whether to adopt the recommendation or to reject it and pursue related litigation and settlement talks. Councilmember Thompson had asked that the council consider postponing action so the council could hold an executive session to discuss the larger, related litigation. City Attorney Koehler and staff explained there are three related matters: the FLUEDRA mediation matter before the council and two separate mandamus actions pending in circuit court seeking permits. Koehler said council authorization could be sought to schedule executive sessions limited to the two mandamus actions and that those sessions could be set at a future date.
Councilmember Wigdier argued that rejecting a nonbinding mediation recommendation does not prejudice either party and that staff’s recommendation was appropriate given legal complexity; Thompson argued the complexity and pending litigation made an executive session advisable before a final decision. Ultimately the council adopted the resolution rejecting the magistrate’s recommendation, and staff said it will coordinate any separate executive sessions on the pending mandamus actions as appropriate.
Resolution 81‑20‑25 directs staff to issue the city’s formal written decision rejecting the magistrate’s recommendation; staff said the action provides a faster administrative result for the parties than letting the statute’s automatic rejection run its course.
Public comment on the item included two speakers supporting the property owner’s request for relief and asking the council to adopt the magistrate’s recommendation. The council’s action preserves the council’s authority to decide the code‑enforcement dispute and sets the litigation and settlement posture going forward.
