PB: Palmer Resolution – My Kingdom for a Grammarian
SDM recommends you read the new Palmer resolution, which is part of the Staff Analysis and Resolution for the August 29, 2012 public hearing.
SDM Observations on the Whereas Clauses
1. What is with all the “Whereas” clauses? Are the Three Amigos trying to fuel a third party appeal of the resolution, assuming it passes? The Whereas clauses appear to be re-litigating the case. For example:
WHEREAS, during the discretionary appeal the Village argued, amongst other legal and factual issues, that the Village had adhered to the direction of the 11th Judicial Circuit and that the 11th Judicial Circuit Appellate Panel erred in directing the Village to approve 1,150 students as the Court could only remand the matter and could not direct a certain action be taken as any such direction would be contrary to the mandate authority of the Court in a Certiorari action and inconsistent with the holding of Broward County v. GBV Int’l Ltd., 787 So. 2d. 838 (Fla. 2001); … (Emphasis in the original.)
SDM cannot figure out any other reason to include this paragraph in the resolution except (a) to lay out a basis for a neighbor to appeal, or (b) to further the CYA process. (BTW, amongst?) The next two are both clear examples of CYA:
WHEREAS, on June 22, 2012, the Third District Appellate Panel, consisting of Chief Judge Wells, Senior Judge Schwartz, and Judge Lagoa, held oral argument on the merits of the Village’s discretionary appeal; and,
WHEREAS, despite what appeared to be a favorable outcome to the Village during oral argument, the Third District Appellate Panel, in a unanimous decision, on July 5, 2012, denied Villages (sic) Writ of Certiorari, leaving in place the 11th Circuit Appellate determination as to the mandate and motion to enforce the mandate, intact; …
What’s the point of naming the judges? Is someone sending a message to the court? The second paragraph is almost amusing. Everyone knows oral arguments are meaningless; only the final, “unanimous decision” against the village matters.
On the Conditions
2. Sec. 4.9 – Community Relations Committee – Palmer must create this committee, composed of 3 representatives from the neighborhood (within a 2500 foot radius) appointed by the council, 3 representatives appointed by Palmer, and one appointee from the Village Manager’s office. The committee must meet at least twice per year for the purpose of “communication, discussion and resolution of any items.”
SDM will look forward to the selection of the 4 village representatives. Who will be the Village Manager’s sacrificial lamb? Will Mayor Stanczyk approve his selection in advance? How will a council of 5 select 3 representatives? SDM boldly predicts the SOPs will nominate a slate, the Three Amigos will rubber stamp it, and the committee will turn into a circus.
3. 4.11 – “The applicant will comply…with the Village’s Art in Public Places Ordinance.”
SDM says: Palmer should pay its students to install the artwork, but it won’t be easy. To do so, Palmer must comply with this nonsense first:
Prior to issuance of a final building permit, a temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy, the applicant or developer for projects subject to this Division shall be required to…[p]lace artwork, which shall have been approved by the board and Village Council, and which shall have a minimum value of 1.25 percent of the value of the proposed project development, on the property on which the development project is located, not to exceed $400,000.00, in lieu of the fee… Sec. 30-160.8(b)(3), VPB Code of Ordinances.
So which is it? Palmer must install all this art before the building permit, before the TCO, or before the CO? This village can’t even draft an ordinance that makes sense. And what if the “board and Village Council” and Palmer don’t agree on what is “art” or that the art meets the minimum value? SDM boldly predicts more litigation in Palmetto Bay’s future.
3. Sec. 6.1 – “The Applicant shall not use the athletic fields for commercial purposes such as renting, leasing, or allowing third-parties unaffiliated with the operation of the school (no third-party organizations or groups) to use the recreational facilities. Applicant shall annually provide proof of existing division-type play, tournaments, organized sports and uses of its facilities to the Village. Prior to the beginning of each season, for each sport, the Applicant shall provide the Village with a list of proposed events – tournament and league play.”
SDM doesn’t understand this provision. What is a commercial purpose as far as this provision goes? What happens if the schedule for a particular sport changes – as they often do – after the season starts? SDM gets the idea that the neighbors don’t want Palmer to rent out its stadium to a circus but this language is just confusing. SDM says: Confusing language is a recurring theme in Palmetto Bay.
4. Sec. 6.3 – “Solely one (1) athletic tournament, jamboree, or division-type play (where numbers of spectators and opposing team(s) are invited to play on site) shall take place at one time on the property… To be clear, this condition relates to holding one event. Not several events, different sports, at same time. Any athletic tournaments, etc., may take place after normal school operating hours (after 3:00 p.m.) and weekends from 10:00 am and 3:00 p.m.”
SDM’s ninth grade English teacher just rolled over in her grave…so many terrible sentences, so little time. Judge SDM holds this paragraph to be an incomprehensible and unenforceable piece of crap.
5. Sec. 6.7 “…The pool shall not be constructed during Phase 1 and is not to be constructed for at least five (5) years after final zoning approval.”
Is this really necessary at this point? The school has been held up for SIX YEARS already. Now the kids can’t even have a swim meet until 2017? By the way, what does “constructed” mean? Does that mean Palmer can’t ask for a building permit until 2017 or the pool can’t be certified for occupancy until 2017? SDM says: Please clarify.
6. Sec. 7.2 “The Applicant shall covenant that no improvements…shall be permitted within the confines of the buffer area (i.e. no roads, parking, storage sheds, recreational, sports, or any other use that may negatively impact the buffer).” (Emphasis added by SDM.)
SDM begs: Please hire a grammarian! If the idea was to prohibit uses in the buffer, then you shouldn’t include the modifier: “that may negatively impact the buffer.” SDM would argue Palmer can put anything in that buffer so long as it does not negatively impact it, whatever that means.
6. Sec. 7.13 – “Applicant shall provide annual update, plan, as to the maintenance for the buffer areas.”
SDM says: See grammarian comment above. Does Palmer have to provide an update or a plan or both? Anyone?
SDM ran out of gas reading all the punitive provisions in the resolution…they seem to go on forever. The idea that the neighbors were somehow left “unprotected” is only true in the sense that some provisions are so poorly drafted that they may be unenforceable. SDM concludes: There is some irony in that.