File 016597
Trump Properties LLC Appeal to Town Council Regarding Hedge Requirements at 515 North County Road (File 016597)
Legal appeal filed by Trump Properties LLC to the Town of Palm Beach Town Council challenging the Architectural Review Commission's decision regarding hedge and tree planting requirements for a property at 515 North County Road, Palm Beach, Florida.
Summary
Trump Properties LLC appeals a June 25, 2008 decision by the Architectural Review Commission regarding the maintenance and replacement of a hedge at 515 North County Road in Palm Beach. The appeal contests ARCOM's interpretation of a 1990 agreement between the Town and previous owner Abraham Gosman, arguing that the agreement only requires hedge maintenance, not tree planting. Trump argues that ARCOM erroneously required planting of 20 trees and the replacement of existing undamaged hedging for symmetry, both of which exceed the contractual obligations. The appeal requests a hearing before the Town Council on August 11, 2008.
TRUMP PROPERTIES LLCc/o The Mar-a-Lago Club1100 South Ocean BoulevardPalm Beach, Florida 33480July 3, 2008Ms. Susan Eichhorn, Town ClerkTown of Palm Beach360 South County RoadPalm Beach, FL 33480Re: Trump Properties LLC515 North County Road, Palm Beach, FloridaDear Ms. Eichhorn:TSP.- P2418rZr13pc_ 72ff01)-1 19 cs7)1)KA.4.4.44Lthte-07\_RECEIVEDJUL 7 2008TOWN CLERKPursuant to Section 18-177 of the Town of Palm Beach Code of Ordinances (the "Code"), TrumpProperties LLC ("Trump" or "Appellant") hereby appeals to the Town Council a certain June 25,2008 decision of the Architectural Review Commission ("ARCOM") regarding the residence at515 North County Road, Palm Beach, Florida (the "Residence").Statement of FactsTrump purchased the Residence on January 6, 2005. The Residence was subject to anAgreement between the Town of Palm Beach and the prior owner, Abraham Gosman, datedJanuary 31, 1990 and recorded in Official Records Book 6350, Page 1207, of the Public Recordsof Palm Beach County, Florida ("Agreement"). The Agreement provides that a hedgecontiguous to North County Road will be maintained and that in the event the hedge is damagedor destroyed, it will be replaced. The Agreement refers to the "hedge" in 9 separate places on thefirst page of the Agreement. The Agreement nowhere refers to, or requires, any trees.On April 7, 2008 the Town gave notice of a code violation alleging that the hedge had not beenmaintained or replaced. The original hedge had been destroyed by the hurricanes of 2005 andtwo subsequent replacement hedges had died due to salt spray. Therefore, Trump asked toreplace the ficus hedge with silver buttonwood hedge material. The Town staff advised that suchdecision would have to be made by ARCOM. The Appellant appeared before ARCOM on May28, 2008. ARCOM approved silver buttonwood hedge material. ARCOM also requested thattrees be planted and requested a tree planting plan. Trump planted the hedge in accordance withthe Agreement.Trump returned to the Code Enforcement Board meeting on June 19, 2008. That Board deferredfurther consideration of the matter pending plantings requested by ARCOM.Trump appeared before ARCOM on June 25, 2008 and (a) sought reconsideration ofJuly 3, 2008Page 2the request for trees and (b) proved that the hedge that had been planted satisfactorily screenedthe house and complied with the terms of the Agreement.Grounds for AppealThe action of ARCOM was inconsistent with and not in conformity with the provisions of theCode and the Agreement which ARCOM and the Code Enforcement Board seek to enforce. Thegrounds for appeal include the following:1. ARCOM erroneously interpreted the Agreement to require not only a hedge as specifiedby the Agreement, but to also require the planting of 20 trees behind the hedge. TheAgreement does not require any planting of trees.2. ARCOM denied the request by Trump to reconsider its position that trees must beplanted.3. ARCOM directed that the portion of the existing hedge which was undamaged, locatednorth of the driveway into the property, be partially or fully destroyed and replaced withsilver buttonwood hedge material for purposes of "symmetry". Such a requirement is notin conformity with the Agreement.4. ARCOM abused its discretion in denying Appellant's request since it is unreasonable torequire new and additional planting outside of the clearly limited requirements of theAgreement.5. Any action by the Code Enforcement Board or ARCOM with regard to the Agreement isimproper and inconsistent with the Town Code since the Code Enforcement Board canonly enforce Code provisions and not contractual agreements, notwithstanding anylanguage to the contrary in the Agreement.Trump requests that this appeal be heard by the Town Council at the meeting onAugust 11,2008.TRUMP PRBy:crnard Diamond, Vice President5434496_v I