Cypress Creek Property Owners' Association

 On June 26, 2025, the CCPOA Board filed a petition with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), seeking changes to the Brownfield agreement that governs cleanup of the Cypress Creek Golf Course by Toll Brothers. The Board also met with Toll’s environmental attorney the previous week to better understand why the developer wants to test Cypress Creek’s soil and groundwater – and what the results could mean for residents.

Here’s what we learned – and why the Board believes there is not adequate assurance that Cypress Creek will be protected by long-term financial harm and other risks.

Why does Toll want to test for contamination in Cypress Creek?

Toll says it’s required to determine whether contamination extends beyond the golf course, as part of its Brownfield site obligations. Brownfield designations offer developers significant tax credits and liability protections. Testing in Cypress Creek would establish a baseline and help determine whether any contamination came from the golf course or historic agricultural use – an important distinction that affects Toll’s cleanup responsibilities.

What happens if contamination is found on a Cypress Creek property?

Toll says it will remove contaminated soil and bring in clean fill only if the contamination is linked to the golf course, not to the land’s historic agricultural use. If it’s deemed “regional anthropogenic” (common due to historic farming), Toll has no obligation to remediate. At previous public meetings with Toll, the developer dedicated a lot of time recapping the site’s previous history as a dairy farm.

What are the risks if contamination is found in Cypress Creek?

Homeowners will be legally required to disclose contamination when selling, even if no cleanup is done. Since Toll is not obligated to remediate if the source is agricultural, Cypress Creek could be left with harmful disclosures and no recourse for cleanup, leading to potential:

● Property value loss

● Impacts on deed restrictions

● Insurance complications

The current Brownfield agreement offers no protections for Cypress Creek property owners against potentially lasting financial, environmental and/or quality-of-life consequences. Also, there would be no remediation or financial protection for Cypress Creek if Toll does testing in our community and then walks away from the project. 

Will Toll clean up contaminated groundwater?

Toll said groundwater contamination is typically addressed with long-term monitoring or use restrictions, not removal. This could lead to deed restrictions in Cypress Creek (e.g., banning irrigation wells) without active remediation.

Has Toll obtained homeowner consent for testing?

Toll says it has obtained some permissions for groundwater or soil boring testing but disclosed that some homeowners have since withdrawn consent.

Can Toll force testing on our private properties?

Toll acknowledged that it cannot compel access, but FDEP can. The agency has not yet done this. Residents appear to be under no current obligation to allow soil or groundwater testing, but you should consult your own legal counsel if unsure of rights or obligations.

Could Cypress Creek be added to the Brownfield designation?

Toll said Brownfield sites can grow to include any location where contamination originating from the golf course is discovered. However, it’s too soon to know if that’s possible in our case.

Why did the CCPOA file a petition with the FDEP?

The FDEP allows affected parties to Brownfield designations to request hearings. The CCPOA filed a petition because we believe the economic burden on adjacent communities like Cypress Creek has not been adequately reviewed. Many residents are concerned about potentially bearing long-term financial impacts without relief, while Toll stands to profit from development.

What happened with the contamination monitoring well Toll drilled on Fox Trace? 

At the CCPOA’s request, Toll’s contractors removed the well on June 25, 2025. The developer has stated that no testing occurred while the well was in place.

Will Cypress Creek ever allow soil or groundwater testing?

The Board has told Toll that we need more time and information, given the serious legal, financial, and health implications. We also note that both Pulte and Toll have worked hard to claim the golf course and neighborhood are separate – until they need Cypress Creek for their purposes. Now they want to treat the community as if it’s part of their project.

Has Toll made its advisory committee more balanced?

No. Despite requests for more balanced representation, the committee still includes the same three Cypress Creek residents – all widely known Toll supporters who do not live in the most-impacted homes directly abutting the golf course. In a May 30 letter to FDEP, Toll argued that it has no legal obligation to appoint a representative committee. We believe that position undermines the spirit and intent of Florida’s Brownfield laws, which require public input.

Please click to view the CCPOA’s petition to the FDEP. We’ll keep the community updated, including whether a hearing is granted. This summary reflects the CCPOA Board’s current understanding of the Brownfield agreement and information provided by Toll.

– The Cypress Creek Property Owners’ Association Board of Directors

Last week, the Cypress Creek Property Owners’ Association Board stopped Toll Brothers’

contractors from drilling a contamination monitoring well in the middle of Fox Trace. The

developer was attempting this with no authority, no notice and no permission from the CCPOA,

showing a complete lack of transparency and respect for our community. Toll had plans for even more drilling on our private roads. Per our Governing Documents, the CCPOA owns our roads and, just as we can’t control what happens on the golf course, the developer can’t do as it

pleases within our neighborhood.

Additionally, Toll often paints the Board as obstructionist, all while the company continues to

show examples of why it’s important for the Board to look out for Cypress Creek’s best interest.

Now, the developer claims drilling within Cypress Creek is mandatory (without providing

documented proof) and argues that it’s illogical for us to oppose testing, given that we continue

to express legitimate concerns about toxins. But their logic raises red flags.

● Why place a dozen or more monitoring wells on land they don’t own? What are they

looking for exactly? And, if the FDEP is requiring this as they’ve stated, why?

● Why do they want to test under our properties? What does that have to do with their

project? They don’t plan to remediate our community. Furthermore, arsenic and other

toxins are considered dangerous when dug up. Our neighborhood is already developed

and has been undisturbed for 50 years.

● Is it really about checking whether arsenic and other contamination from the golf course

has spread – or is it more about limiting their own liability through the Brownfield

designation? If they prove it’s here, does it protect them more in some way?

● If contamination is found under our properties or private roads, are we expected to

disclose this to future buyers? How will it affect home values or pending sales?

We can’t blindly approve drilling on our privately owned roads with so many uncertainties. The

Board feels strongly that we have a fiduciary duty to protect our community as we’ve been

doing. This includes protecting our property values and our roads. In the meantime, we have

even more unanswered questions …

Why does Toll Brothers’ Brownfield Community Advisory Committee exclude Cypress

Creek’s most-affected and concerned residents?

The Board contacted FDEP last week, asking why Toll failed to properly solicit community

participation for the state-mandated advisory committee. Months ago, we asked the developer

to ensure there was a balanced committee that included concerned residents living directly next

to the contaminated golf course. Toll agreed and promised outreach. But, they broke that

promise. Instead, they appointed three of their most vocal supporters who live several blocks

away from the golf course, have ties to the golf course owners, and frequently oppose anyone

seeking stronger environmental or flooding protections. You can learn more about the

committee members in Attachment G of the Brownfield Site Rehabilitation Agreement.

How is this a fair and balanced committee? Why didn’t Toll conduct the promised outreach or

notify the community once the committee members were chosen? Why didn’t the advisory

committee members inform the neighborhood they were appointed at the last Board Meeting or in an email to the Board? Why didn’t any of the committee members alert the community that we had just 21 days to petition for a hearing about the Brownfield designation, something they

likely knew?

Fortunately, the Board filed a petition for an extension – just in time – and requested that the

advisory committee be expanded to include impacted homeowners.

Is this a preview of what’s to come?

If Toll Brothers can’t be transparent about forming a community advisory committee or notify us before drilling in our privately owned streets, how can we trust them to do what’s right for things with more consequential outcomes – like protecting Cypress Creek from dangerous toxins

during and after construction? The developer claims to want collaboration, but their actions say

otherwise. The Board is very concerned.

If you would like to learn more about Brownfield designations, here are some of the most-recent filings:

● Soil Management Plan: Learn how arsenic and other toxins exceed state health and

safety limits within the golf course’s soil and groundwater and what Toll Brothers plans to

do with that soil (relocate, reuse, etc.)

 https://discover.pbc.gov/pzb/zoning/PDF/CypressCreek/Cypress%20Creek%20Golf%20Course%20SMP.pdf

● Brownfield Site Rehabilitation Agreement: Details of the Brownfield designation,

including proposed schedule.

The CCPOA Board would like to thank everyone who participated in the recent assessment vote which was intended help keep manned gates, fund reserves and simplify the assessment voting process. We appreciate our members, on both sides of the issue, who attended the May 15 meeting and continue to invest their time and energy encouraging their neighbors to vote.

Because this ballot initiative is so important to the future of Cypress Creek, the Board voted to extend ballot collection to August 7.Please consider voting in favor of the following amendments:

• Amendment 1 – Capital Contribution by Resale Purchasers: Requires new buyers pay a one-time contribution equal to one year of dues, helping to fund reserves for roads and other needs.
• Amendment 2 – Assessment Increase: Raises the quarterly assessment cap by just $50 (from $350 to $400 per lot).
• Amendment 3 – Member Vote: Changes assessment approval from a majority of all members to a majority of those who vote by ballot and proxy.

Why was the deadline extended?

While there was more than a quorum of members who voted by proxy or attended the Special Meeting in person, only about 175 ballots were received. That means over 220 members did not vote. This is the typical turnout for our community. Unfortunately, the way our governing documents are written, even if the majority of ballots support an initiative, it won’t pass unless about 267 members vote YES. This exceptionally high threshold can result in the voice and will of those who DID vote being silenced by those who don’t. This is precisely why the Board is asking the community to approve Amendment 3.

How will Amendment 3 help?

Currently, any annual assessment in excess of the current cap ($350 a quarter) requires the approval of the majority of the members (or 201 YES votes). But as witnessed by the recent vote, getting 201 members to simply vote is an extremely difficult task. The proposed Amendment 3 changes that to approval of the majority of those who vote. Not only will this enable the will of the people to be heard, it also aligns with nearly every other voting or election process and what’s common in other homeowners’ associations. We also believe that Amendment 3 will ENCOURAGE more people to vote and increase community engagement. 

We are not doing this to “sneak through” a one-year assessment increase based on approval of only 61 members, as you may have heard. We are doing this to increase the voice of those members who are engaged and who vote. This rule change benefits everyone – both those who support and don’t support an initiative.

What’s next?

The good news is that ballots are valid for 90 days, that’s why we’re able to continue the effort to collect more ballots from those who missed the deadline. 

If you have not voted, you can still do so through August 7, and we hope that you will send your ballot in today. Follow the mailing instructions in your ballot packet or drop off at the ballot box located at 4275 Fox Trace.

If you need a replacement ballot, you can download the file posted below.    

 We've received some questions about Amendment #3 and what it really means for property owners. Some people are confused by a recent mailing from CCI that incorrectly stated:

“If Amendment #3 passes, only 61 YES votes would be needed to raise yearly assessments, instead of the current 267.”

That’s not true.

Question: Does Amendment #3 lower the number of YES votes needed to raise assessments to just 61 members?

Answer: No. That’s not what Amendment #3 does.

Amendment #3 says that your assessments can not exceed the annual cap (currently $1,400 per year) unless a majority of members at an annual or special member meeting with a quorum of members vote to allow a higher amount.

So, the number of YES votes needed depends on how many people actually vote:

• If 400 members vote, it will require 201 (not 61) YES votes to raise your assessment for that year. 
• If 300 members vote, it will require 151 (not 61) YES votes to raise your assessment      for that year.
• 
  

In short: You’ll never have to pay more than the cap (currently $1,400 per year) unless a majority of voting members agree to raise it for that year.

Question: If members vote to raise my assessment to $1,700 in 2026, will I also have to pay $1,700 in 2027, and thereafter?
 

Answer: No. 

In 2027, the assessment would go back to the regular $1,400 limit—unless members vote again to raise it. Any increase above the allowable cap (currently $1,400) has to be approved by the voting members each year. In short, the higher assessment will have to be approved, again, by a majority of the voting members. 

Amendment #3 has nothing to do with changing the cap or increasing your assessments on a yearly basis. Any assessment above the cap in any year will always need to be approved by a majority of the voting members at that time. 

QUESTION: How are most HOA budgets approved?

ANSWER: Most HOA annual budgets are approved exactly the way Amendment #3 is written. Annual budgets and assessments are approved by a majority of the members voting at the annual meeting. 

QUESTION: Why is Amendment #3 even needed?

ANSWER: Amendment #3 will give members the opportunity to vote for, and approve, the kind of projects and improvements that matter most to property owners. As costs have risen and as annual assessments have remained flat, it has become increasingly difficult to improve the community’s landscaping, or keep the wall or our roads well maintained. Amendment #3 will make it easier for the community to fund much needed or desirable improvements.  

BOTTOM LINE:
Amendment #3 doesn’t change the cap or make it easier to change the cap. It just makes sure that no assessment above the cap can happen without most voting members approving it at an annual or special meeting or the members.

What to do:

• Check your mail for a large white envelope from CCPOA & AKAM
• Read the info about the proposed assessment amendment
• Fill out the ballot and limited proxy
• Return by May 15 (easy drop off: 4275 Fox Trace)
• Please vote again if you previously voted in November or January 

Cypress Creek hasn’t raised its annual assessments in over a decade. Our current budget for expenses (insurance, gates, etc.) is based on 2013 funding levels.

Please vote YES on these amendments:

1. Capital Contribution by Resale Purchasers: New buyers pay a one-time contribution equal to one year of dues, helping to fund reserves for roads and other needs.
2. Assessment Cap Increase: Raises the quarterly cap on assessment by just $50 (from $350 to $400 per lot).
3. Member Vote: Changes assessment approval from a majority of all members to a majority of those who vote by ballot and proxy.

Please return your ballot today! Questions? ccpoa@akam.com | 561-983-6000 

As previously reported, the Cypress Creek POA did not receive enough ballots in the recent vote to maintain manned gate attendants at the Calliandra and Cross Creek entrances. As a result, the POA will begin transitioning to a virtual attendant system. This solution will allow the POA to manage expenses within the current budget while continuing to fund reserves. Despite increasing costs, your 2025 assessments will remain at the same level they have been since ($350 a quarter). 

A Special Board Meeting meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 26th, at 6:30 PM at the Lake Worth Drainage District office (13081 S Military Trail, Delray Beach, FL 33484) to discuss this transition. Representatives from three virtual attendant companies will present their systems and proposals:

1. Envera Systems - https://enverasystems.com/solutions/virtual-gate-guard/
2. VirtualGuard -  www.virtualguard.com 
3. SafePassage Solutions - https://safepassagesolutions.com/ (SafePassage will present virtually).

Information about these vendors and their proposals is provided below. Residents are encouraged to attend the meeting, ask questions, and provide feedback. 

 We’ll also discuss plans to attempt another ballot initiative in an effort to avoid switching from manned gates to virtual. Cypress Creek hasn’t increased assessments in over a decade, while all other expenses have increased (gates, insurance, etc.). The two most-recent attempts to increase assessments by just by $50 per quarter failed because not enough people voted. Per our governing documents, ⅔ of the voting members must participate. The Board will discuss this matter and finalize the wording on the ballot initiative(s) before distribution to the community next month. 

Cypress Creek Community Meeting
Time: Mar 26, 2025 06:30 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Join Zoom Meeting

https://akam.zoom.us/j/97245013943?pwd=9a6TyYP2pN1zhpX8uxjGaDblPlJjR3.1

zoom.us/join

Call in - 305 224 1968 US

Meeting ID: 972 4501 3943
Passcode: 167240

Transition Timeline:

• March 26, 2025 – Vendor presentations to the community
• March–April 2025 – Board collects community feedback on preferred vendor
• April–May 2025 – Board selects a vendor and finalizes contract details
• Summer 2025 – Installation of hardware and software begins
• Late Summer/Early Fall 2025 – Contract with High-Risk Enforcement (current manned guard provider) ends, and the 24/7 virtual guard system is implemented

The Cypress Creek Board of Directors acknowledges concerns about this transition. While the Board would prefer to keep manned gate attendance, financial constraints necessitate this shift. Resident participation is crucial to ensuring the best possible outcome for our community.  

Video from Envera:  https://youtu.be/DIxsW5iCNQU 

Video from Envera: https://youtu.be/Km1zljlRGr8

Video from SafePassage:  https://youtu.be/vKPabevy9aw 

We’re pleased to announce that Cypress Creek is moving to a new Visitor Management Software designed to streamline our visitor management process. The transition to this enhanced system comes at no cost to our Association and is required because our gate access vendor no longer supports WebGuest.

What This Means for You: 

EntranceIQ will replace our current Safehouse Webguest system, offering more efficient and user-friendly features, including:

● Quick and easy visitor registration

● Real-time notifications and updates about visitor arrivals and departures

What to Expect: Look for an email on June 18 with the subject line “Welcome to EIQ” which will

come from “Donotreply@entranceiq.app.” This email will explain how to download the new

resident’s app called EIQ Connect and activate your account.

Do I have to re-enter my guests?: Hopefully not. Once you download the app and log into your new account, your work should be done! Your previously approved guests and vendors should be automatically transferred to the new system. However, this is a good time to verify that your list is still accurate and to remove anyone who is no longer needed.

What if I need help?: In your activation email, you’ll receive access to a tutorial and other tips.

If you need additional help throughout the transition, the EntranceIQ team will be available to

provide support and assistance. Our property management team from Tallfield is also on tap to

provide further assistance. 

Please reach out by emailing at ccpoa@tallfield.com. Some people with older mobile devices may need additional troubleshooting guidance, which Tallfield can provide.

Having transponder trouble or need a new transponder?

If you suspect that your transponder sticker isn’t working, please email

cypresscreekpoa@gmail.com with the following info and we’ll have your information checked or

re-entered in the system:

● Transponder sticker #

● License plate #

● Car make and model

● Name and address

If you need a new gate transponder sticker, they are available at the West Gate, Monday

through Friday from 7 a.m. until 3 p.m. The stickers cost $25 each, payable by check or money

order, made out to CCPOA. Please bring the vehicle requiring the transponder with you to the

West Gate. Proof of residence must also be provided. 

Contact Aaron Hallyburton at heffey01@gmail.com if you have questions or have trouble with gate access.

Property Manager - Tallfield Management 

Antony Cramer  acramer@akam.com or 561-983-6000

Daisy Vazquez -  dvazquez@akam.com or 561-983-6000, Ext 205 

Cypress Creek POA Board 

Contact: CypressCreekPOA@gmail.com

Where to send dues:

Cypress Creek Property Owners' Association Inc.

Tallfield Associates, LLC

P.O. Box 628207

Orlando, FL 32862-8207 

ARC (Architectural Review) 

Contact:   Tena Perez - TPerez@akam.com

You may also mail your ARC application to:

Tallfield Management

12765 Forest Hill Blvd.

Suite 1320

Wellington, FL 33414

Gate Transponders

Available from the West Gate Attendant, (561) 375-9896, 7 a.m. – 3 p.m. Monday through Friday

Gate Attendants

East Gate (561) 375-9176

West Gate (561) 375-9896

Safety

PBSO Non-emergency  - (561) 688-3000

PBSO/Fire/EMS Emergency 911

Local Service Providers

City of Boynton Beach Water/Sewer: (561) 742-6000

Florida Power & Light Company: (561) 697-8000

Solid Waste Authority (SWA): (561) 697-2700  

Pick up days: 

          Wednesday – Garbage/Recycling 

          Saturday – Garbage/Bulk/Yard Waste

ATT Uverse: (800) 288-2020

Comcast: (800) Xfinity

DirecTV: (800) DirecTV

DISH: (800) 333-DISH