Welcome to the Forum
Welcome to the Citizens' Forum of Deerfield Beach. Whether you are a member of the forum or just a visitor, we hope that you will enjoy the spirited discussions about some of the issues that affect our community. And if you would like to tell us what you think, it's easy to register, and membership is open to everyone. Find out how!
Posted 9/21/02 at 0300 GMT -- "forum"

Shortcut Tip
Want to get here faster? No problem. Just type forum.saveourbeach in your browser address window and press [ctrl][enter] on your keyboard. Your browser will take of the details. Of course, you can always bookmark the Citizens' Forum for quick access.
Posted 10/12/02 at 2030 GMT -- "forum"

Length of Posts
While we do not want to place undue restrictions on posters, we ask that you keep your messages to under 500 words. Unfortunately, Web space costs money, and we have only a limited amount of both. Just to give an idea, this post uses 52 words. The Welcome message has 62 words.
Posted 9/21/02 at 0300 GMT -- "forum"

No posts at this time.

Vest Pocket Park
One very large concern that residents have is the fact that the city is partnering with a lessee (John Connelly, Pier Restaurant operator). Together they plan to build on 72 feet of open space, a tiny park, that the public uses daily. Patrons of the restaurant will use this space to enjoy a meal while 9 feet will be preserved for a public walkway.(such generosity) When this was brought up at the last P-&-Z meeting comments were made that publically owned land that has picnic tables, trees, and a grassy area does not constitute a park no more than "your front lawn" (Jerry Ferguson, Director of P-&-Z). Letters written to the Mayor have not been answered. And where does Commissioner Noland stand? This is her district. What is the main attraction? Fishing or Eating? Wasn't the Pier built mainly for the purpose of fishing and observation by the public and the restaurant a convenience for the beach goers? Will the fishermen lose access to the pier parking lot that I think is now exclusively for their use? Where will they park? What will it cost? How far is too far to lug fishing gear? Will restaurant patrons object to the smell of bait and raw fish?
But wait, in The Observer, Aug. 15, City Manager, Larry Deetjen, had something to say. He calls it a "vest-pocket" park, and that "people are accustomed to the amenities and the unobstructed view of the ocean." Is this concern for public use and opinion or merely another self-serving political tactic to placate the public? The Original Save Our Beach brought this issue to his attention and that of the Mayor several weeks ago and has yet to receive any formal response. The city is suppose to buy beach front property with state grant money and keeping it open space for public access. This outdoor seating for restaurant patrons seems in direct conflict. So,is Mr. Deetjen's comment a self-serving political tactic or concern from the heart?". Whether the restaurant gets approval or not, Mr. Deetjen, has covered his bases, and I think he will surely use this it to say he showed concern for public opinion.
Posted 8/19/02 at 1408 GMT -- marti

Commission Is Totally Predictable
Sly, sneeky, deceptive! Do these adjectives apply to a small governing body of 5 that work within the walls of a certain City Hall?
The mayor says he wants citizen input. He says he is keeping his campaign promises to listen to the citizens of Deerfield Beach. Somehow these statements just don't jive with what the commission and Mayor plan to do on Wed. July 31, at 4PM at City Hall when most citizens are still working. The agenda calls for the FINAL VOTE to remove floor area ratio, remove lot coverage size, and reduce parking spaces to 9x18 for ALL parking facilities at the beach. Commissioner Clark-Reed didn't think it was at all a good idea for this to be done throughout the city, but didn't have any qualms about messing with the beach, in which lies is our most valuable real estate properties. Commissioner Trinchi just seems to nod yes to all Deetjen backed ideas. Commissioner Noland has yet to answer a letter and phone call I made to her months ago requesting a District 1 meeting about this parking garage thing. The Mayor seems to have taken credit for this proposal so we know his vote. Commissioner Gonot has come up with some very logical arguments regarding important issues that have not been in step with the other commissioners, but even if he votes no, it won't be enough. Simple majority rules!
Yes, that means MOP will have the green light to build a monster of a garage on A1A. The 80% lot coverage it sought to utilize, in February will now be allowed by law without any variences. There will be no stopping this developer. Why? That is a good question that perhaps someone can answer for me. The residents who objected to the garage in February when it was first presented asked only that it be built to the present code, 50% of the lot and that the city not get involved with a secretly proposed lease that the city manager had written up.
You MUST call the mayor, the commissioners, the city manager, everybody, and tell them that it is not a good idea to remove these rules from our building code. Their job is to REPRESENT THE CITIZENS OF DEERFIELD BEACH. THAT IS WHY THEY WERE ELECTED! Their job is NOT to DICTATE, CONTROL, MANIPULATE, DECEIVE, AND TOTALLY IGNORE THE OPINIONS of our town people, and give the developers an unfair advantage over the wishes of the tax paying citizens.
Maybe someone should start the ball rolling and recall these elected officials. Maybe, just maybe, they would wake up and listen, but don't hold your breath!
Posted 7/27/02 at 0448 GMT -- marti

Dick Cheney Type Secrecy at City Hall
While the five things suggested that this city could do right now to restore the Public Trust [Some Sensible Proposals to Rebuild Public Confidence in City Government] may be a good idea they will never occur because those in City Hall and their financial backers will want maintain their Dick Cheney mode of sneakiness to protect their objective of mutual self-perpetuation.
Does anyone really think that the folks in city hall want the average taxpayer to know what's really going on or who they're meeting and speaking with or how or why they're being influenced?
Larry's got his new cushy deal now so he's set for some time to come so get used to it and prepare for more of the same rigamarole. Plus, they're infusing or propping up the aging and ailing Trinchitella so the games can continue on as usual. And the public will continue to be ignored.
Posted 7/21/02 at 2251 GMT -- w.b.hickock

Regional Activity Center & the DOT
The designation of our beach area as a RAC will greatly impact pedestrian and motorist safety and congestion, no matter what our city leaders say. The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) needs to be made aware of the problems on A1A in Deerfield Beach. Please e-mail your concerns about A1A and the problems the RAC will bring to the following DOT personnel:
1)lap.hoang@dot.stat.fl.us This is the e-mail for the State Traffic Operations
2) ed.rice@dot.state.fl.us This is the e-mail for the State Safety Engineer
3)barbara.kelleher@dot.state.fl.us This is the District Four Area e-mail address
Let them know about your concerns. They have an obligation to address the traffic and safety issues on A1A.
Posted 6/15/02 at 1955 GMT -- pam

Regional Activity Center
It is apparent that the City is going forward with the RAC application and it will pretty much be in its original form. The Broward County Planning Council will give another reveiew in early July and more than likely forward it on to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review. This is a state agency. If you are opposed, I strongly suggest you e-mail the following people at FDCA as quickly as possible:
1)sonny.timmerman@dca.state.fl.us Sonny Timmerman, Director of Community Planning
2)ken.metcalf@dca.state.fl.us Ken Metcalf, DCA Local Planning Staff
3) charles.gauthier@dca.state.fl.us Charles Gauthier, Chief of Bureau of Local Planning
4) jim.quinn@dca.state.fl.us Jim Quinn, Chief of State Planning
Posted 6/15/02 at 1948 GMT -- pam

Fair and Representative Government
After reading the talking point on "The Die Is Cast for Deerfield Beach's Future" [City Hands Manager New Contract.] as well as Frank Cuomo's letter in the Observer on Commissioner Trinchitella's remarks to residents,and in consideration of name calling by others, I'd like to point out that these were the exact type of situations and behavior patterns that we were trying to prevent by enacting Single Member Districting. Those of us who have lived here for most of our lives will remember that we worked hard to bring about a change to local government that was meant to take us out from under the dominance of Century Village block voting and provide us with fairer and more representative government. Well, that was at least in theory.
Somehow, somewhere along the way our goals have been lost or perhaps to more accurately state it, been sold out to special interests. Why is that? It is because the majority of our commission members are only looking out for themselves. Some of them lack the ability and capacity to seek higher office. As a result they want to stay on the Deerfield Beach Commission for as long as they can and hold on to their power. Our goals of accountability,representative and responsive government have been cast aside because of self-serving political expediency. We bear the dubious distinction of being one of the few cities iin the entire U.S.A. that threw out Term Limits. Of course, there were the usual duplicitous actions that helped bring that about. What's on our books now as "Term Limits" is a joke. Any incumbent can use their "influence" to get the lowly percentage of signatures needed to their name back on the ballot. Then those incumbents can benefit from all that out of town special interest money that comes in to keep them in power.
Representative, responsive, respectful government in Deerfield Beach? It appears that we've still got a lot of work to accomplish before we reach that point.
Posted 5/18/02 at 1423 GMT -- rich lorraine

The Sneakiness Continues
One might opine that the same air of "sneakiness" that has been the hallmark of the "Dream Team" and Deetjen era of Deerfield Beach leadership continues with his retention as Deerfield Beach's city manager. It's no great secret that Deerfield's Firefighter's refer to Deetjen as "Backdoor Larry".
There was seemingly immediate controversy about this "emergency" visit to check on the health of Commissioner Trinchitella that somehow magically seems to have resulted in a "sweeter" deal for Deetjen in his staying on in Deerfield Beach. It truly makes one wonder.
Has anyone ever noticed Lynn Deetjen's bus bench ad by the Chamber of Commerce that says "Everything She Touches To Sold" Shouldn't one ask does that include Larry? And then ultimately might that also include Deerfield's public beach property?
Posted 5/13/02 at 1618 GMT -- w.b.hickcock

Dear Mayor Capellini
Re: Commission Meeting February 19, 2002
Dear Mayor Capellini:
We were somewhat encouraged by some of the statements you and Vice Mayor Noland made at the commission meeting last Tuesday. We were glad to hear you say that granting variances to builders to overbuild a site is not your vision of how our area should be “improved”. We agree with you about the problems and dangers more cars and pedestrians would cause. When you stated that you had no trouble finding a parking spot on a Wednesday at lunchtime you gave credence to the fact that lack of parking is a spotty problem; except for holidays and sunny weekends during the “season” there is open parking available.
However, the issue we want to emphasize is the negative impact of overbuilding and changing the character and density of the beach area. I quote from the proposed (now to be revised) “Deerfield Beach Community Redevelopment Plan for the Beach/Cove Area” (our emphasis added):
“The quaint and quiet shopping center and atmosphere of the Deerfield Beach area…a very unique character, which is disappearing in other places.”
“…open space and landscaping should be prime components…”
“The large majority of interviewees wanted a redevelopment shopping center of two to three stories maximum and did not want a series of large buildings…
“The term ‘village’ was also used to describe how people envisioned the unique ambiance of the beach area and shopping center.”
“Parking is a large problem here and most people wanted several scattered parking sites to reduce walking distances. Structured parking one to three levels was preferred due to its compactness and visual preference and shade provision.”
“Site design should limit and mitigate building bulk as much as possible…”
It seems to be a violation of the trust of the people of the town to entertain any plan, current or future, that is a contravention of the wishes of the people of the town, and indeed of the spirit of the plan that the commission custom- built.
That there is not enough profit for an investment group to build while adhering to code becomes their problem, not the town’s. While in conversation with a former mayor of an adjoining town we asked how he dealt with developer’s proposals. He said that they had very carefully crafted a code with specific regulations for each category and held to it. He said he was never against development, but the builders had to adhere to the code. It seems that eliminated a lot of controversy and solved the problem of seeming favoritism. We need to emulate that with strict height and lot coverage restrictions as well as provisions to encourage single-family homes, and unique businesses.
We wonder how Morgerman, O’Leary and Patel believed that they would be able get approval for their five-story building with such flagrant violations of code and public wishes in their proposal. We understand that they were also led to believe that there was a very good possibility that the city would lease the four-story parking garage part of their scheme. From what we learned at the meeting, it seems that City Manager Larry Deetjen was instrumental in creating this belief without the knowledge of you and the rest of the commission. We suppose this is possible, but disappointing. His role in the management of the city should be carefully examined, and the commission must be more vigilant while supervising his actions.
We disagree that the CRA’s underlying goal should be to “generate the greatest possible growth in the area tax base”. We believe that the goal should be to maintain and improve the quality of life in the beach area. If the beach area is upgraded and properly maintained and attractive, and the area around it continues the clean up, fix-up that has already started (see our block - NE 19th Terrace/1st Street - for example, six houses upgraded from seedy eye-sores to attractive homes in the past few years) property values will continue to go up (more taxes), and more people will be attracted to our lovely little family oriented village. The beach area does not need and cannot support many more multi-storied residences, the building of which will cause more traffic problems well as crowding an already crowded beach causing frustration and the decline of the wonderful reputation we have.
In spite of what may seem a reactionary position to some, we are not opposed to change in Deerfield Beach. Change and growth are going to happen whether we like it or not. The city, precisely because it is so different, will attract people, who are drawn to the small town family atmosphere just as we were. How the growth is managed is up to you. We will continue to be active in watch dogging you and the commission, as you manage the growth. Watching to make sure that competent managers run Deerfield Beach. Watching to make sure that resident’s wishes not developer’s profits are kept in mind when approving new projects. Watching Deerfield Beach turn from a charming little city with a small town atmosphere to into an even more charming little city with a small town atmosphere.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth and James Geoghegan
Posted 2/23/02 at 2026 GMT -- bwg

Letter to the DFB Commission
Re: Application 01-B1-155 Revision 1 and CASE NO. 1789
To The Deerfield Beach City Commission:
We are apposed to granting variances from the provisions of the land development code. The current provisions were put in place to protect properties and the town from over development, and neighbors from encroachment by developers.
Even the current code allows far too much development in the beach area. We, and everyone we have talked to in our neighborhood, do not want to change Deerfield Beach’s nature or density. Until recently, with the specter of the influx of baby- boomers demanding retirement homes, there was no demand for five or six story high condos and hotels, so the zoning laws were not seen as threatening. The few cases of spot zoning were slipped by with hardly a murmur.
Now, with the demand for housing rising, and the scent of big money in the air, we find developers, slavering at the thought of their big profits, and waving the potential of increased tax revenue, in front of politicians. Politicians who see a big building boom, lots of tax and grant money, and forests of Royal Palms lining every street and walkway are allowing variances not in code, or even in common sense.
For example: Who can argue that the moldering disreputable old motel on the corner of Hillsborough and A1A shouldn’t be torn down? It was an eyesore, good riddance, how much better that it be replaced by an upscale condo building of half-million dollar units. Never mind that the builder, eyes glowing green, was given 4-5 variances from code (safety setbacks and lot coverage) and shoe-horned this wonder on to a sub-standard lot. Bigger is NOT better, we will have 14 families trying to go out of one skinny driveway into A1A’s bumper to bumper melee.
Now we are being asked to approve a strip mall and parking garage in that vacant, ex-bank building lot, eyesore on 20th Avenue. Wouldn’t that disreputable weedy old lot look much better with a beautiful, tiered parking lot festooned with potted plants? Not at this expense - FIVE VARIANCES! We are to approve covering 80%, instead of the 50% in code, of this lot with cement, approve allowing sub-code sized parking spaces, approve a floor area ratio of 2.7 instead of 1.0, approve a setback of 5.5 feet instead of 10 feet, and to allow an exemption from having a loading zone.
If you are a neighbor, you will have your house with a looming cement wall, not 15 feet away with grass and trees between, as code now demands, but in spitting distance, oozing CO2 and dumpster fumes.
Do we need more stores; we have empty stores by the beach now? Do we need more parking, rarely, perhaps at the height of the season on a Saturday? More parking will equal more people, which will equal total gridlock, not just the partial mess we have now. Where will they find space to spread their towels on the sand?
The commissioners envision pointing to these wonderful transformations, and their proposed development plan, and being praised! What a wonderful addition to their CVs! In order to support this short sighted and potentially dangerous vision, they force themselves to turn a blind eye and ear to the concerns of the electorate.
Having meetings in response to the county mandate smacks of lip service. Help us believe that you are serious about meeting the needs and wants of the people of the town, and not the entrepreneurs, by denying any plans to circumvent the current zoning laws. Deny the parking garage/shopping mall until the plan meets current zoning regulations. Talk to and involve all the people of the town in reworking the Land Development Code, resist the temptation to have a committee which will merely rubber stamp the existing plan. Pretend that plan does not exist and work to find out what the town really wants and needs. Deerfield Beach, as you have heard so many times recently is special, you be special also, and listen, hear and heed.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth and James Geoghegan
Posted 2/22/02 at 1859 GMT -- bwg

Garage Proposal Suggests Shady Deal
The diligent efforts of The "Original Save Our Beach" Committee paid off last night at the Commission Meeting. The "truth" about what was going on between the City Manager, MOP, some city employees, and who knows who else was made public by the Mayor, Commissioner Noland, and Commissioner Gonot. The Mayor, armed with documents and memos given to him by Tom Connick and other members of our committee, informed the public that he and the commissioners would no longer stand for anything that even suggested "back door agreements" were being made. He said the public's "skepticism" with regard to this parking garage proposal is "justified" by the amount of documentation he held up. He read aloud several key paragraphs from a proposed lease agreement between the city and MOP, that referred to specific financing, terms of payment, and the moving of parking spaces from the Beach House Restaurant now designated across from the location where it is being built. The mayor went through some figures and concluded that "30 new parking spaces" is all that the city would end up with if the city signed that agreement. Commissioner Gonot asked MOP to explain any hardship they think exists and why these variences should be granted. Last May MOP was granted a zoning change and parking deviation to build an 111 space parking lot. Residents for the most part were not opposed to this request and thought that was what was going to be built.
Commissioner Noland was very upset and distraught over the fact that she was just about the last person to hear about any of this and on Saturday a police officer showed up at her door with a binder containing a study done by city employees, "A Task Force for Parking Garages." She said she assumed it was done at the direction of the City Manager and the Commission knew nothing about it. She affirmed these kinds of things must stop. The good thing about all of this is that there is open and direct communication between citizens and government.
We hope that with the formation of this RAC Ad Hoc Committee that innovative and creative ideas will be formulated to find solutions to the unique problems of the beach. One of goals of The "Original Save Our Beach" is to make sure there is "Careful planning of residential and commercial development." There are many things that need to be done to improve our beach community. We believe this can be done with sensitivity to the needs of our businesses, our tourists, and the rights of the residents. Proactive development, not reactive, is the key to a better Deerfield Beach.
Give us a development proposal that makes sense and we'll put all our resources, talents, and energy behind it!
Posted 2/21/02 at 0411 GMT -- marti

Parking Garage & Retail Stores
The Planning -&- Zoning Committee recommended approval of a Parking Garage -&- Retail Stores to be built on A1A across from Island Sports (old bank site). It didn't need a zoning change and is complying with the height restriction, but it is asking for 5 variences. The Planning and Zoning Committeee didn't seem at all bothered by the request for: 1) 30% lot coverage increase, 2)almost triple floor area ratio, 3) almost half the number of feet required from the corner front of property , 4) to eliminate the required loading zone, and 5) reduced size of parking spaces. This makes one wonder why we have the Deerfield Beach Land Development Code that is suppose to protect our citizens' rights, maintain open space, beautify our city, make our streets safe, and restrict over development.
Investors and commercial projects needing variences should be carefully investigated; Is it the betterment of our City or just to increase "profits?" Variences should be very few and far between, only granted when a "hardship" can be proven! If you agree with this letter please come to the February 19 Commission Meeting, because it will be at this meeting that a vote will be taken to either accept or deny this proposal. We need to hold the line and enforce our development code. If you can't come, call or write your District Commissioner and Mayor.
Posted 2/12/02 at 0448 GMT -- marti

County Revision Plan for Area
Got a notice today that the county is holding a planning meetin 1/24/2002 in Ft Lauderdale. They propose to add 2000 dwelling units and 900 hotel rooms and 175,000 square feet of commercial space. Where are the twin eiffel towers going to be built??
Posted 1/11/02 at 1930 GMT -- jg

RAC (Regional Activity Center)
I can hardly believe that we are faced YET with trying to save the open space and beauty of our beach and Main Beach Parking Lot. This is an affont to the citizens of Deerfield Beach who voted to defeat the so called "Beach Park Referendum" just one year ago. That project was called a "Park" and this proposal is called an "Activity Center." Who does our Planning Board and Commission think they are fooling? A "wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf", and a different name is only a change in semantics. RAC is not in the interests of the residents of Deerfield Beach. It is in the interests of those who stand to benefit financially: developers, hotels, restaurants, etc. Our taxes have been raised to the maximum, fire fees have been added, and now beach parking tickets almost doubled ($50). We taxpayers are willing to pay to keep our city beautiful and safe and our Commissioners and Mayor should represent and respect our vote. Our children and grandchildren will be looking at concrete, asphalt, and buildings of unproportunate size where open space and trees once stood. It makes me so sad! If you feel as I do please call 426-2686 and help us defeat this proposal. We need every citizen.
Posted 11/9/01 at 0551 GMT -- marti