Displaying 1 - 25 of 236

 Name Meeting Date Choose Which Item Your Comment Corresponds With Comments to be read into record
Scott Zucker01/03/2023Item B

Honorable Commissioners,
Please accept this letter as a testament of Audubon Everglades’ ardent support for Ordinance No. 2023-01. Our Audubon chapter regularly schedules fieldtrips along the Lake Worth stretch of the Lagoon, and many of our members regularly bird here and on or near the Lockhart Municipal Pier where they regularly observe and monitor these productive birding habitats and the unique shorebird species they attract.

Since 2005, the restoration areas within the Lake Worth Lagoon have successfully attracted many listed shorebirds to nest and successfully fledge their chicks. These include the American Oyster Catcher, the Least Tern, and the Black Skimmer, which are all designated as “Threatened” by FWC. But in recent years Audubon Everglades members have observed an increase in aircraft, specifically drones, being flown over or near these critical nesting sites. These aircraft have sometimes drawn nesting parents away from their breeding areas, endangering the nest, as the birds appear to perceive the aircraft as a threat.

If these aircraft flights are allowed to continue, these Florida threatened breeding shorebirds may experience nest failures as a result and go the way of the Florida Scrub Jay, which has been extirpated from our county. And the loss of these birds within the Lagoon may even have an adverse economic effect on Lake Worth.

An economic valuation study in 2020 of the Lake Worth Lagoon underwritten by the Everglades Law Center estimated that resident birdwatchers annually make approx. 3.5 million trips to the Lake Worth lagoon per year, which is augmented by an approx. 200,000 out of town birdwatcher trips, for an estimated value to the county and lagoon area of nearly 200 million dollars. Some of these dollars are being spent at businesses in Lake Worth Beach, and if the birds aren’t there, the people won’t come.

Currently, Palm Beach County, under Code Ordinances - Chapter 21, wisely restricts the taking off and landing of some aerial apparatus from county parks, such as the Juno Beach Pier, where they might disturb nesting wildlife.
We are respectfully asking that Lake Worth Beach follow the county’s lead and pass Ordinance No. 2023-01.

Sincerely,
Scott Zucker
President, Audubon Everglades

Brian Luongo01/03/2023Item A

Brian Luongo
1327 N Palmway

While I applaud the Lake Worth Beach's desire to become a more sustainable and environmentally friendly city, I must object to the recent measures to prohibit the use of artificial turf. Given the dire water concerns throughout the country and the deadly algae blooms Florida experiences year after year, I would think the City would be open to a multi prong approach which should definitely include limited use of artificial turf as part of the solution. Artificial turf certainly meets sustainability requirements on many levels. Reduction of gas emissions from mowers (EPA estimates 5% of greenhouse gas emissions come from this source), elimination of pesticide use, elimination of fertilizer use, drastic reduction of potable water use, and site erosion control just to name a few. The concerns of chemical leaching comes from the recycled tire rubber infill used. New artificial turf installations can use sand as an alternative infill material which eliminates this concern.

I was recently served notice, in December 2022, of a code violation for an artificial turf installation which occurred in 2016. Code enforcement has yet to provide where this was a violation at the time of installation. In fact until the December 6th, 2022 meeting artificial turf was specifically listed as permissible in some sections of the code. It seems this past month the City code enforcement has targeted such prior installations without regard to when the installation occurred. If the City Commission feels artificial turf should no longer be allowed and cannot be persuaded to allow small installations, then I urge the Commission to grandfather in any existing installations. Forcing residents to spend several thousand dollars to remove existing installations and comply with new landscaping regulations is absurd.

Judith Fox01/03/2023Item A

This whole process is ridiculous. Our esteemed representative sends out an email 1 minute before closing on a 3 day holiday weekend and the meeting is the first opened day after. Not a lot of time to inform our neighbours of the board intent to break up our districts. A shambles and not sure if this is a legal amount of time to be given to property owners. That aside a couple of questions. Why yet another outside "paid for" report? Can't Lake Worth Beach think for itself? It's like we had a bunch of money to get outside information. Why are you doing this so our poor excuse for a commissioner can get more votes from a person who doesn't even know enough to wear closed to shoes to a neighborhood meeting while running for office (guess it worked)? There she sits - not knowing a thing - so she attaches herself to a person who has a definite agenda of using our board to further himself.

Breaking up these properties is not going to solve the problem of ignorance of the board. Maybe if you could give us a reasonable reason this is being done we would better understand
instead of giving us a day to try to make sone sense of this. This is a bunch of ......

Mary Tost-Dunning01/03/2023Item B

I strongly encourage approval of ordinance No. 2023-01. I have personally observed the Oystercatchers at Snook Island frantically chasing a drone and making distressing calls that lasted for more than 30 minutes. The presence of a drone creates noise that is unfamiliar to birds and can lead to stress and the abandonment of nests, collision with the drone, and a total collapse of an existing bird colony. I strongly urge you to pass this ordinance. Thank you. - Mary Dunning

Ginny Powell01/03/2023Item B

Coastal development and shoreline armoring have resulted in widespread habitat loss for the American oystercatcher, a large black and white shorebird with a bright reddish orange bill. We are fortunate that this bird, a species designated by the State of Florida as Threatened, has been using the rocky sand substrate of the Snook Islands Natural Area both north & south of the Lake Worth Bridge for foraging and nesting for well over a decade now. However, like most birds, oystercatchers are very fearful of people, dogs, and other predators including man-made drones being launched from Bryant Park. These threats will cause the adults oystercatchers to move on and off the nest in order to try to keep their eggs safe which exposes the eggs and young chicks to predators and to temperatures that are too hot or too cold.

LWB has become a birding destination because of oystercatchers and other birds that live in or pass through our city. Birders get hungry when they are here to see birds so they are using our restaurants. In another year or so, they may be guests at the renovated Gulfstream Hotel. I believe that birds are and will continue to be part of the city’s economic engine.

The oystercatchers and other birds enhance life for residents of and visitors to LWB. Let’s keep them safe by protecting their habitat. Please vote YES to approve an ordinance to ban drones from city beaches and parks.

Blue Kaufman01/03/2023Item B

I am in favor of the ban on drones annually between March 1st and October 31st. The snook islands of lake worth are a remarkable feat in restoration, and the Oystercatchers who now use this site as their Eastern most nesting site in the United States, are very much a symbol of that. These are not your everyday sparrows. Oystercatchers are remarkable and very unique birds and we are lucky to share this coastal city with them. This regulation is a very small and very impactful thing this community can do. I support the ordinance and am excited to see more from the commission when it comes to protecting Florida's environment and the wildlife we share it with. Thank you!

Wes Blackman01/03/2023Item A

Good evening honorable Mayor and Commissioners. These comments concern what is a continuing code compliance crisis related to the city’s rules, regulations and policy towards not allowing artificial turf. I will not dive into the merits or downfalls related to the use of artificial turf and its potential environmental impact. However, one wonders whether a regularly irrigated yard planted with St. Augustine grass and receiving regular doses of herbicides and pesticides is a better choice than a material that requires neither. My message here tonight is that if you are true to your desire to ban the use of artificial turf in the city that you use all the means at your disposal to communicate that to the property owners, residents and businesses within the City of Lake Worth Beach. Put this out on the website, in utility bill inserts, press releases and the City’s YouTube channel. By not fully notifying and explaining this ban to the public, there are more and more Code Compliance resulting from people installing expensive artificial in their yards only to be told after the fact that it is not allowed and then cited by a Code Compliance officer. I am asking that the City be proactive and work with home and garden stores, landscape companies and make sure they know artificial turf cannot be used in the City. Go the extra mile. Right now we have a situation where the City is like a spider in a web waiting for the next person to run afoul of the ban. That ban is also not clearly enunciated in the land development regulations. It only arises since the landscaping code calls for “living ground cover” but doesn’t explicitly prohibit artificial turf. I understand it is that way since the land development regulations are constructed to be “inclusionary” in that what is permitted is specifically stated. That is something that an urban planner can understand but not necessarily understood by the general public. That’s why we are having a crush of code compliance cases related to this item. It also doesn’t help that the code is selectively enforced as there are all sorts of lawns with no ground cover, living or otherwise. Many times violators of the ban are identified by neighbors who take it upon themselves to identify artificial turf lawns. Again, to prevent unpleasant surprises, please do all you can to notify the public so that property owners do not waste money and time installing something that must eventually be removed. Thank you.

Makayla Clanton01/03/2023Item A

It has been publicly noted that FAU was given instructions to redraw the districts in Lake Worth Beach while keeping each commissioner in their current district. This is absurd. The districts should be redrawn based solely on the current population and nothing else. A current commissioner's address should have nothing to do with redrawing districts. Please start this process over and provide instructions that are best for the CITY and not politically motivated. The new districts should become effective the next election cycle. If this means that a current commissioner will have to run for re-election before their term has expired then that is what's best for the City.

Herman Robinson01/03/2023Item A

Honorable Mayor and Commissioners: Looking at the redistricting proposals currently under discussion, it appears that the Modified Public Proposal provides the best option at this time. It maintains the cohesive community in the southwest quadrant while expanding representation in District 4. While some existing neighborhood associations may find their areas in more than one voting district, I trust that at a minimum, their membership will maintain a city-wide perspective for the greater good of Lake Worth Beach. I appreciate the thoughtful consideration of Lake Worth Beach citizens and the City Commission as this important process evolves.
Herman Robinson

Thomas Lemere01/03/2023Item A

First Id like to say I appreciate Lake Worth Beach commission and the work they are doing to make Lake Worth a great place to live each day. However I must object to the measures to prohibit the use of artificial turf. The code does not say anywhere that artificial turf is not allowed. The code also says that if I abandon my house then artificial turf can stay. I'll also repeat what others have spoken about with the dire water constraints. Saving water because artificial turf does not need to be watered is a huge bonus. Also the fact that chemicals not need to be sprayed all over the place by landscapers to get rid of bugs or other concerns outdoors is a huge win as well. For me, my turf is my pool decking. When I had my pool inspected the turf was fine. I'm not suggesting that the whole town be covered in artificial turf. However if local residents want to use it in their backyards to save on their own water bill and just water in general It's a huge plus for the resident and the town for the reasons I gave above. Artificial turf certainly meets sustainability requirements on many levels. It's a huge upgrade over the minimum requirements that are listed in the code such as mulch which is not live ground cover as well but is allowed. Residents having to rip up their entire backyard and then get a survey, and then get new pool decking, And then landscape cover that will be a guessing game because there's no approved list of ground cover in the code and a code that doesn't say anything about artificial turf not being allowed seems absurd to me. Who has money like that to rip up their entire backyard because of a code with ambiguous and subjective language. I certainly don't. People buy these houses to live in Paradise and live how they want to live. Artificial turf is a perfect ground cover for outdoor living. I agree with some of the other comments where I would urge the commission to allow for artificial turf In certain areas of a resident to include the backyard. Again I'm not suggesting everybody's yards be covered fully in artificial turf front and back and sides because that also is absurd.

There has to be a common ground here and I'm not even sure why artificial turf is not allowed to begin with and the only answer I've ever heard is because "It's in the code" which it isn't.

I don't think residents ask for much. We pay our utility bills which are getting higher and higher. We pay the property taxes. And I for one along with others that I know of contribute a great deal to this community. All we want to do is keep our turf.

I appreciate you hearing my comments and Happy New Year.

Richard Stowe01/03/2023Item B

I encourage the Mayor and Commissioners to vote to approve ORDINANCE NO. 2023-01. I support regulation of launching of aircraft including unmanned drones in Lake Worth Beach municipal spaces including our beach, public parks and recreational facilities between March 1st and October 31st.

David Simms01/03/2023Item A

I request the Commission restore the contributing and non-contributing historic structures on Lake Avenue, South L. Street, South K. Street, and 1st Ave South. The City could use funds from the penny sales tax to procure and install energy-efficient doors and windows.

sam smith01/03/2023Item A

Good evening honorable Mayor and Commissioners. I write regarding code enforcement being used as a weapon. There is a group of retired ladies that are going around and making code complaints about people who have astro turf or rocks or other water preservation landscaping. These ladies, one who is on the CRA, are trespassing on people's property or using drones because they are reporting properties that have turf in private back yards (which was previously permitted). You can debate whether astro turf or grass is worse or better for the environment, but our code is not clear at all and doesn't even mention astro turf. It is crazy that the city is coding well kept homes whose owners spent thousands of dollars on turf while ignoring life safety slum lord homes (sometimes right next door).

Also, while the landscaping code calls for “living ground cover” it doesn’t explicitly prohibit artificial turf. Moreover, the code, which seemed to have been written by the same retired ladies who are now using code as a weapon, discriminates against families with children. The idea that families with small children are not allowed to have play areas on their private property is absurd. Living ground cover which turns into a jungle is an absurd suggestion to familes with small children who want their child to have a safe play area.

Drew Martin01/03/2023Item B

Subject: Jan 3,2023 NEW BUSINESS: B. Ordinance No. 2023-01 Restricting Drone Usage near Oyster Catcher Nests and Other Nesting sites along water way

Dear Mayor and Commissioners,

The Sierra Club supports regulations that restrict drone usage near Oyster Catcher and other Nesting Sites. Drones cause nesting birds to chase them leaving the chicks defenseless. Drones provide no benefits and are simply toys. They should be restricted near nests and signage should clearly state that they are prohibited. There should be a strong fine for those who ignore the regulations.

Regards,
Drew Martin
Conservation Chair, Sierra Club Loxahatchee Group

sam smith01/17/2023Item A

I have two non agenda comments tonight, I believe they speak to different issues so I would ask the City Clerk to please read both.

Why are there no public parks, public play grounds in the north east quadrant, Parrot Cove, College Park (east of Federal) area. Every other quadrant in the city has play grounds. Bryant Park and South Bryant Park each have one or two. The western districts have parks and playgrounds in both the northern section and southern section, Howard Park, Sunset Park and others. The only public access parks we have are two very small pocket parks on the intracoastal which have no services or equipment or Snook Island. This is a very large area of the City with many families with small children and there are no public parks for children in this area. This seems highly inequitable in looking at the City as a whole.

It would make sense to add a play ground near the golf course club house as there is un-used land available right by the parking lot. This spot is city owned land and underutilized or not utilized really at all (it is just grass, not utilized for golf or maintenance storage or anything else. This spot is also centrally located for this area. And of course, there is parking readily available.

sam smith01/17/2023Item A

I write regarding code enforcement being used as a weapon. There is a group of retired individuals that are going around and making code complaints about people who have astro turf, rocks or other expensive water preservation landscaping. These individuals are trespassing on people's property or using drones because they are reporting properties that have turf in private back yards (which was previously permitted).

You can debate whether astro turf or grass is worse or better for the environment, but our code is not clear at all and doesn't even mention astro turf and doesn't explicitly ban it. It is concerning that the city code dept., which has limited resources, is citing the nicest, well kept homes whose owners spent thousands on turf while ignoring life safety slum lord homes (sometimes right next door). Shouldn't code enforcement have a systemic plan that prioritizes issues like over crowding, rats, life and safety code issues instead of letting a small group, who have a hobby, run the dept.? Why are our limited tax dollars being hijacked by outside forces. If I pick a code issue, like overgrown landscaping, can I just report every property in the City and the code officers will run after that issue. Why do we not have a systemic approach to the real code issues in this City?

Moreover, the code, which seemed to have been written by the same individuals who are now using code as a weapon, discriminates against families with children. The idea that families with small children are not allowed to have play areas on their private property is absurd and unfair. Living ground cover which turns into a jungle is a strange suggestion from the City to families with small children who want their child to have a safe play area. The commission needs to listen to all of the community and not just the retired folks who have time to show up for mtgs.

Michele Mower01/17/2023Item C
Jill Karlin01/17/2023Item A
Greg Richter01/17/2023Item A

Greg Richter
1202 S Palmway

Tonight we are here once again on the L&M Property. Something that should have been resolved two years ago when the majority took over the commission. The first question is what to do with the current structure. At this point they are too far gone for the city to do anything with them and be removed. I believe that the majority of people fighting for these structures, it not about saving them as much as keeping something else going on the property. I think it is a misuse and tarnishes the true historical preservation that we have in our city.

I'm open to any reasonable development on this property, but any additional housing, retail must have a off street parking as a component. Several of the proposal mentioned on street parking, that is a non starter in this area of downtown.

I also must ask the Commissioner McVoy recuse himself on voting on any aspect of this development. Looking at his financial statement submitted to the city his only source of income is his city salary and South Florida Engineering and Consulting. The owner of this company has files lawsuits and opposed any major development to our downtown. The economic development would threaten their HUB2 standing. Commissioner McVoy need to come clean here!

Brendan Lynch01/24/2023Item A

Brendan Lynch CRA Chair 920 South Lakeside Drive. I am sorry I am not able to be at this meeting. The CRA and City have been working hard to find the right solution for these properties. It was agreed to bring in a third party consultant at a significant cost to help guy us all through the process. I would like to ask the commission to follow through with approving the finding. The City has condemned certain structures. Based on this action and the attendance of three sitting City commissioners at one of our CRA meeting the CRA vote to demo these dangerous structures. The CRA board authorized me to sign a demo contract. the contractor is in for permits and I am told they are being held up. My ask is to commit to a plan and move forward together for the benefit of all. There is a very vocal group of people that live/work near these properties, but they are public properties that should benefit all, even those that are not as vocal.

Erin Allen01/24/2023Item A

Erin Allen
208 South Lakeside Drive

At the outset of my remarks, I am asking Commissioner McVoy to recuse himself from any vote on the subject that has come before you this evening. He has demonstrated a deep, personal bias in opposition to the L & M project in its totality and the demolition of any structures that would make this project a reality.

In October 2019 the Historic Preservation Board voted to allow the demolition of the dilapidated structures in this zone to open the way for redevelopment. On November 12th Commissioner McVoy’s employer, Thomas Conboy, wrote a letter to the City asking to appeal that decision. Commissioner McVoy also authored a letter to the City at that time, and it mirrored verbatim Thomas Conboy’s letter and was on the letterhead of South Florida Engineering and Consulting LLC, his boss’ company and his employer. This letter was in complete opposition to the project. Unhappy with the outcome of that appeal, Thomas Conboy sued the City of Lake Worth, filing a Writ of Certiorari in February of 2020. That was ultimately denied by a judge in 2021.

Clearly Commissioner McVoy cannot be fair and impartial in this process since he and his boss vehemently oppose this, and therefore for the betterment of the community, and to avoid any appearance of impropriety he should recuse himself from voting tonight.

The city commission had consensus for the demolition of the subject buildings, but when the new commission was seated they required the CRA to expend $100K to hire the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to do a study to see what was the best, most financially feasible plan, and to see if the structures could be saved. They held 5 days of public charrettes so the residents could weigh in on this and give their thoughts and recommendations. Out of those charrettes came several possible plans. As part of that process the TCRPC determined two of the structures could be saved but two were beyond salvaging and would need to be demoed, which is part of your vote this evening. The most viable plan proposed is “CV6” and is the plan the TCRPC is recommending.

No one on this council is an expert in urban planning. That’s why you hire experts. The experts were hired and did an exhaustive study at great expense and spent a lot of time to give us thoughtful options to consider. Please rely on the experts’ opinions and approve the plan that is the most financially feasible for our city.

Elizabeth Arevalo01/24/2023Item A

Hi, my name is Elizabeth Arevalo and I live at 2503 N. Dixie Highway in Lake Worth Beach.
I am opposed to the City Commission trying to go back on its word to accept the recommendations made by the Treasure Coast Regional Council. I’m asking you to accept the recommendations you already agreed to and work collaboratively with the community and all stakeholders. Do not continue to waste tax dollars and put the health and safety of our residents at risk. Thank you.

sam smith01/24/2023Item A

I love living in a City that can't afford playgrounds or proper trash pick up or to pave it streets, but some how we have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on "experts" and "consultants". Sometimes we pay different consultants to opine on the same project so we have dueling expert opinions.

And we seem to pay a lot of different experts just to then ignore them. Said another way, this is a terrible use of our precious tax dollars.

Mary Kelley01/24/2023Item A

Hi, my name is Mary Kelley__ and I live at 510 North Ocean Breeze in Lake Worth Beach.
I am opposed to the City Commission trying to go back on their word to accept the recommendations
made by the Treasure Coast Regional Council. I’m asking you to accept the recommendations you
already agreed to and work collaboratively with the community and all stakeholders.
Do not continue to waste tax dollars and put the health and safety of our residents at risk. Thank you.

alexander schultz01/24/2023Item A

Overall, the plans are disasters. They look like someone trying to fit square pegs into round holes; misguided social engineering. They do nothing to attract visitors between the hours of 9am to 4pm to come to our “historic” town and its businesses. Consider using the properties to create a Yesteryear Village, even asking the County if they could relocate Yesteryear Village here. The City Museum could even be relocated to the Village. Many cities have the large Brown exit signs on the interstates for the city’s “Old Town.” Visitor attraction should have been the first step before special interest buildings were studied. Commercial establishments then could have been built adjacent to the “Village” core.

Substantially increased property heights on any part of Lucerne, and Lake west of Dixie and east of M Street are fine, but increased heights on Lake east of Dixie and west of M would destroy the possibility of creating a historic core downtown appearance. Not having the Bohemian and the Mid one or two stories higher were missed opportunities.

When the public meeting was held for the Element, gasps burst out when the image was unveiled.

I notified the City many years ago about flooding on the property of many of the existing historic homes. Notwithstanding, the City has approved structures that take up the remaining unbuilt land on the lot forcing rainwater to the adjacent lots. So, I have a senior citizen neighbor that the City has further injured by forcing more rainwater on to her lot. And that does not consider the damage caused to her when the approved second story removed her view of the sky. Many of us are in the 4th Quarter of our lives, our father’s fought in World II, and our uncles died there, and the City continues to reek havoc, misery and damage on us.

Alex Schultz
612 2nd Avenue South

 Name Meeting Date Choose Which Item Your Comment Corresponds With Comments to be read into record

Comments are closed.

Close Search Window