Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boca Raton council rejects magistrate recommendation in submerged‑land dispute at 3000 NE 8th Ave
Summary
Council adopted a resolution to reject a special magistrate’s nonbinding recommendation on a code‑enforcement order involving roughly 4 acres of submerged land at 3000 NE 8th Ave, voting 4‑1 after hearing the property owner and legal counsel.
The Boca Raton City Council voted 4‑1 on June 10 to adopt Resolution 81‑20‑25, formally rejecting a special magistrate’s nonbinding recommendation issued under the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act (F.L.U.D.R.A.) concerning approximately 4.04 acres of predominantly submerged land at 3000 Northeast 8th Avenue.
City staff and legal counsel recommended rejecting the magistrate’s recommendation and indicated the city retains full authority to accept, modify or reject such recommendations. City attorney counsel explained that if the council took no action within 45 days the magistrate’s recommendation would be deemed rejected by operation of law; an explicit rejection provides the interested party with a faster resolution. "A vote to approve the resolution is rejecting the magistrate's recommendation," city counsel said.
Hope Calhoun, an attorney representing the property owner, asked council to adopt the magistrate’s recommendation and nullify a 2024 code‑enforcement order so the owner could obtain permits and develop the property. Calhoun said the magistrate’s order was supported by ‘‘overwhelming evidence’’ in the hearing record and urged the council to accept the recommendation. Owner William Swaim described a long permitting history and asked to be treated like other property owners; he said mediation cleared most issues but the permit remained unresolved.
Council members discussed the procedural and legal posture of the matter; one council member suggested an executive session to consider related, pending mandamus lawsuits that involve the city and the same property owner. The city attorney indicated two discrete mandamus actions are pending in circuit court and recommended executive sessions limited to those matters.
The roll call vote on the resolution resulted in four votes in favor and one opposed (Thompson). The council’s action rejects the magistrate’s recommendation and preserves the city's contested code‑enforcement stance pending any judicial proceedings.
What’s next: The interested party may pursue the pending mandamus actions in court; the city attorney indicated the city will coordinate any executive sessions related to the pending litigation with appropriate notice.
Votes at a glance: Resolution 81‑20‑25 rejecting the special magistrate recommendation — outcome: approved, vote 4‑1 (Thompson opposed).
