Palmetto Bay: Paradise (Point) Lost
by SDM
“The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven..”
- John Milton, Paradise Lost
After watching Monday night’s Palmetto Bay zoning hearing, SDM woke this morning thinking of that old television show Name That Tune. Remember it? If you answered yes then SDM is sorry to say that you are officially old.
For those youngsters reading this blog, Name That Tune was a game show where contestants would bid on how few notes they needed to name the tune the host would play. The trick was that they had to bid before they could hear the music.
Human nature being what it is, many contestants let their competitiveness outrun their rational minds. They would keep bidding down the number of notes until some poor sucker had to name that tune in an impossible 3 notes.
Of course, the show wasn’t going to give them Deep Purple’s riff from Smoke on the Water either. (Youngsters: Click on the link and wait about 3 minutes until Smoke starts. Only then will you understand your parents.)
The lesson is that when a future challenge is an unknown, you shouldn’t bid yourself into a position where you have no chance to meet the challenge.
On Monday night, the council reaped the harvest of the bidders who preceded them.
In 2009, the council adopted two code provisions – one inadvertent and one intentional – that came into play such that nearly all of the homes at the end of Paradise Point are forever in jeopardy. SDM will attempt to explain in simple terms what the council did.
The applicant property owner purchased a lot between two homes, both of which are between 43 and 45 feet high. These heights are common in this small neighborhood because the owners want to be high enough to see over the mangroves. The applicant asked that his home be permitted to rise to the same height as his neighbors.
The problem was that the village modified – perhaps inadvertently – its land development regulations in 2009 so that the maximum height permitted in the zoning category for these homes is 35 feet. Thus, the applicant had to request a variance to build to the 45 feet his neighbors enjoy.
But, as the opposing neighbor next door argued through her lawyer, the village’s variance standard is a strict one – perhaps the strictest in the county. In true name-that-tune fashion, the 2009 council had bid up the variance standard making Palmetto Bay a place where “hardship” is almost impossible to show. Without a showing of a hardship not caused by the applicant, the council can’t grant a variance.
The village’s planning and zoning director threaded the needle in his staff analysis and recommended approval of the variance claiming incomprehensibly that the property owner somehow did not cause the hardship. Ultimately, at the urging of the Mayor, the council approved the variance.
SDM agrees that the property owner should be able to build to the same height as his neighbors. But, the legal path the council followed to granting the variance is destined to cause needless controversy down the road unless the code is fixed.
You see, now that the height maximum in Paradise Point is 35 feet, properties destroyed more than 50% cannot be legally be rebuilt to 45 feet – and, here’s the rub – except for Monday night’s applicant because he has a variance! All of his neighbors – who once had variances under the county code – lost those rights in 2009 when the village changed its zoning code.
If any of this sounds familiar to you then you deserve an SDM gold star. The exact circumstances that have screwed Paradise Point homeowners will screw all the churches and schools in Palmetto Bay if they have to rebuild after a hurricane or a fire.
Oh, think twice. It’s just another day for you and me in Paradise.
- Phil Collins
Joan Lindsay is right for a change. Our code does need an overhaul, but not for the reasons her and her lackeys (Brian Pariser) want. Joan wants to stop all construction or expansion of any church and school for any reason.
I would recommend that the “New Council” look at codes like “Shed Locations”. Currently the code says 20 away feet from your property line and make it 2 feet from your property line, back in the corner of your lot where everyone wants them. Or being more lenient on lot coverage, allowing the residents to build a proper size home on his or her lot.
What no one knows, except for a very few, was the Zoning Department a few years ago had the ability to grant up to a 25% variance to the Homeowners without the need to pay the Village over a thousand dollars for a hearing and then two months later get turned down. Now, the Zoning Department can only grant up to a 10% Variance. That’s called an Administrative Variance.
Current and past Council members changed that rule with out anyone knowing about it. How’d they do that?
So instead of terrorizing Churches and Schools how bout making the process more friendly for a resident to improve his property. Now there’s a campaign issue someone can run on. Oh there are a few people that would endorse that, but it wouldn’t be Brian or Tim.
This message approved by “People With Common Sense”.
Joan Lindsay is right for a change. Our code does need an overhaul, but not for the reasons her and her lackeys (Brian Pariser) want. Joan wants to stop all construction or expansion of any church and school for any reason.
I would recommend that the “New Council” look at codes like “Shed Locations”. Currently the code says 20 away feet from your property line and make it 2 feet from your property line, back in the corner of your lot where everyone wants them. Or being more lenient on lot coverage, allowing the residents to build a proper size home on his or her lot.
What no one knows accept for a very few was, the Zoning Department a few years ago had the ability to grant up to a 25% variance to the Homeowners without the need to pay the Village over a thousand dollars for a hearing and then two months later get turned down. Now, the Zoning Department can only grant up to a 10% Variance. That’s called an Administrative Variance.
Some Current and past Council members changed that rule without anyone knowing about. How’d they do that?
So instead of terrorizing Churches and Schools how bout making the process more friendly for a resident to improve his property. Now there’s a campaign issue someone can run on. Oh there are a few people that would endorse that, but it wouldn’t be Brian or Tim.
This message approved by “People With Common Sense”.
It has only taken over one year of angst in this community to get reasonable decisions! I still recall, with a heavy heart, the family with a disabled child that asked for a bit more lot coverage for the perfect home for a child in a wheelchair. All the neighbors agreed to the variance. The Council voted NO 3 to 2 with the statement being made by Parisier “I just enforced the law.” That was a heartless, unreasonable result. Finally after dozens of community members (Village Voice, SDM, Recall PB, Flinn blogs) have stood up and proclaimed “this is NOT a community”, our Leaders are taking notice and making fair decisions. It appears the Grinch’s heart has grown three sizes!
This was odd indeed, why did this get approved when there really isn’t a hardship yet a few months ago a Doctor couldn’t get approval with a bonafide hardship demonstrated? Ohh right the handlers came out for that one!!! The hypocrisy of this group is so hard to understand, they have no consistency, no backbone and its rule by mob rule
There’s another difference between the doctor’s case and the Monday case: competent legal representation. Monday’s applicant had a lawyer that scoured the neighborhood for logical comparisons.
The good doctor probably could have found several analogous properties that today have more lot coverage than is currently permitted. Following Monday’s logic, his request for increased lot coverage would merely give him the same thing his neighbors have.
The whole process has sunk to a level of inconsistent nonsensicality that would be funny if it weren’t so offensive.
The reason the pure hardship standard was adopted by the village, was to treat all residents equally under the same standard, in order to avoid inconsistent variance decisions by council members to subjectively choose which residents’ personal or financial hardship should have greater weight than others. The pure hardship standard evens the variance application process for all residents using an objective standard to be used by an individual in performing due diligence in determining whether to purchase or how to build on a particular lot in the village.
Two comments: First, other municipalities use different standards and apply them evenly to all applicants. Second, the point of the post is that Palmetto Bay IS NOT applying its more restrictive standard evenly.
The county standard is as follows:
Upon appeal or direct application in specific cases, the Board shall hear and grant applications for non-use variances from the terms of the zoning and subdivision regulations and may grant a non-use variance upon a showing by the applicant that the non-use variance maintains the basic intent and purpose of the zoning, subdivision and other land use regulations, which is to protect the general welfare of the public, particularly as it affects the stability and appearance of the community and provided that the non-use variance will be otherwise compatible with the surrounding land uses and would not be detrimental to the community. No showing of unnecessary hardship to the land is required.
SDM expects Councilwoman Lindsay will love this just as she loves all things county.
SDM I urge you to read the comments at the end of the Herald article you referenced earlier.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/10/23/3063881_p3/palmetto-bay-voters-have-stark.html
SDM, here’s another hot topic for you.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/10/26/3068859/campaign-contributions-cause-flap.html
The treatment of the Doctor who needed a variance to build his house a few feet over the lot coverage requirements to suit the needs of his sick child was a disgrace. Then a few months later a lady shows up for a variance for her swimming pool, voila! Without a fight she got her variance. Who was she?
Then this other mysterious variance for the guy with the extra tall roof. Like a “David Coperfield” magic trick. It just appeared.
All of these people deserve a variance; the council should not pick and choose based on the quality of their lawyer or in most cases behind the scenes political payback.
In the case of the extra tall roof, besides his competent lawyer, the homeowner is a celebrity. I won’t tell you who it is, but I’m sure his name alone, convinced Brian and Joan it was in “their” best in interest to give this guy what he wanted and deserved.
They didn’t need another Pitbull after them, they have enough. The poor Doctor, not politically connected, not rich, just a regular guy, couldn’t get the time of day from our Vice Mayor Brian Pariser. If you want something from this council, in particular, Brian Pariser, you cant be a regular guy. You need something to offer him.
Let’s change the attitude of the council, fairness for everyone. How do we get that?
Vote the bums out!