First of all, I'd like to thank you, Fred, for the invitation to add to the blog. I don't know who is reading it, but I would like to contribute to a responsible discussion about issues of concern to all of us who love living in Biscayne Park as much as my family and my friends do. I had the opportunity to attend tonight's meeting on this same issue-and I know that my flyer was taken to task as misrepresenting the issues that the board was considering-but I think that perhaps that impression was taken from having only read the title of the flyer-"The City of Biscayne Park Want to Destroy Your Front Yard." Admittedly that is a flamethrower of a title! But, I was afraid no one would read it if they thought it was a Domino's coupon or a church bingo announcement. The main thrust of my argument and complaint was that I thought that the language of the proposed changes really didn't address the intent of the Chapter's original intent that seems to be to be about safe traffic through the village. Anyways, I wrote a letter explaining this to the Commissioners and our Mayor, and Fred graciously offered me an invitation to post it here, so I do without further comment and I await yours. Like most of the endeavors in my life, I find out how much I don't know shortly after I begin, and I suspect this experience will be similar.
January 24, 2015
Subject: Proposed changes to Ch. 5 of Charter and Ordnances
Ref: January 26th meeting at 7PM for citizen input
Dear Mayor and Commissioners,
I am contacting you in regards to the proposed changes to Ch. 5 of the Village
Charter. Since last weeks meeting in regards to this matter I have had a little
more time to study the proposed changes in the document. I have argued in the
attached flyer that the Board seems to have gone off track from the original
intent of the particular chapters concerns which dealt primarily with concerns about
safe traffic through the park (see Section 5.1.1-Purpose). Instead, the
Board(s) seems to have become preoccupied with aesthetic concerns about the
types of foliage that may or may not be put in someone’s front yard. For
example, when a Board(s) that supposedly is interested in making sure that a
clear line of sight is available in the “right of way” becomes mired down in
specifying which types of organic mulch are permissible, it is evident that the
train has left the tracks.
I
would like to see the original language of the section (5.3.4.b) preserved in
regards to “Landscaping.” This language is clearly focused on the issue of safety
in regards to line of sight-“clear zone,” and it allows for deviances for
specific trees, shrubs, etc., that are maintained in such a way that common
sense can be used in determining whether or not the landscaping constitutes a
“traffic hazard.”
While
I walked around our Village yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak with four
of our police officers-partly to inform them what I was doing, but also to ask
them if they had been consulted by either of the Board(s) about safety issues
in re-drafting this section of the Ordinances. None of the officers I spoke to
had been asked for their opinion. One officer informed me that he had recently
attended training to do the kind of enforcement duties regarding existing
codes. I would be very comfortable allowing the police or other code
enforcement officers to determine the “safety” concerns regarding specific
landscaping on existing properties.
I
am afraid that the proposed language will place an undue hardship on many of
our neighbors and citizens (and me, too!). Please do not approve the proposed
language, and insist that the Board(s) return to the drawing board and preserve
the intent of the Chapter to address its original function-to ensure the safe
passage of vehicles and pedestrian traffic in the Park.
One
of the great difficulties in drafting any kind of rules is the possibility of
unseen consequences. There is a temptation to try to use language in such a way
as to prohibit any possible misunderstandings, but the nature of language
itself and perhaps the beauty of it is that everyone understands things
differently. I believe and support the Board(s) attempt to clarify and renew
the health of our Village Charter, however, in this specific case it may be
best to leave this section as it is.
Allow our code enforcement officers to use their own discretion and work
with individual homeowners when a property presents a safety hazard, and allow
the wonderful and beautiful diversity of our many different landscapes and
properties to be preserved.
Sincerely,
Tom
Ferstle
11220
NE 8th Ct
Biscayne
Park, Fl 33161
954-604-9175
Tom,
ReplyDeleteGood argument. Thanks for posting.
You raise a few issues I would address with you. First of all, you have to realize that the Code Review Committee has an extensive and broad task. The Codes are the only ones we have, and they comprise all the land use issues there are in the Village. Each Code has a variety of implications. So a given Code, as in Chapter 5, might address more than one thing. There are certainly safety issues, like regarding sight lines and sight triangles, but the same Code that addresses that also has aesthetic implications. One example you mentioned was about mulch. I was as perplexed as you are, until I heard one of the Committee members say that the problem with certain mulch materials is the dye that's in it, and the goal was to keep that dye out of the Village, out of the ground, out of the ground water.
We could discuss other details of your letter-- and the details deserve discussion-- but I want to call your attention to a difficult balancing act for the Code Review Committee, and for the Commission, and for all of us. We have to keep in mind, and preserve, both the unique individual prerogatives and discretionary rights of homeowners, but also the common needs of the "Village" as a whole and unified community. Every act, and every rule, compromises one or both of those pressures. That's life when you live "with" other people. You can make the same argument about any community rule. Speed limits have intentions. They also have implications. And maximum speeds imply minimum speeds. But you understand why the regulations are there. It's the same with the Codes.
For me, the biggest issue is the purpose of swales. You might argue that swales should not exist, and that all land to the street should be owned as part of the homestead. If you don't argue that, then you have to admit that there is a community purpose for swales, and that's why you, the homeowner, don't own your swale. The purpose, as I'm coming to understand it more clearly, is to permit access that is in the community interest, maybe more than it's in your interest. Utility installations are in the swale. The swale should offer an opportunity for cars to be somewhere other than on the street. The swale is a place than any pedestrian can walk, or get safety from cars in the street. Once you understand this, it becomes clear why the homeowner can't use the swale any way he wants, and even make it unavailable for anything except, let's say, specimen plants. Once you do that, CNM can't get to the water meter, no one can walk on the street border of your property when cars threaten, visitors can't park at your house, and the mailman can't pull in off the road. There's a meaning for that strip of land, and it's not to provide you even more space to express your landscaping ambitions. Start eight feet back from the street, and knock yourself out. Just give the Village, and CNM, and FPL, and ATT, and Comcast, and your neighbors, and your visitors, and USPS use of those eight feet.
Nobody is trying to spoil your party or make your life unhappy. It's just in an interest that might not personally be yours, or that you didn't recognize as such.
This really is a very unique, eclectic, unusually styled neighborhood. That's why you're here, that's why other speakers last night are here, that's why we're all here. Enjoy all it makes available to you. Just surrender to us those eight feet. And I'll tell you publicly now, it is my goal to have the Village relinquish to homeowners all swale other than those eight feet. Some swales here are bizarrely and unnecessarily up to 30 feet. Nobody needs that much of someone else's lot. I want to give it to the homeowner. All we as a community need to control is those eight feet abutting the street.
Thanks again for putting yourself out there.
Fred
Sorry, Tom, there's something else I forgot to mention. One alternative a number of people have proposed to using swales for public access is medians. Keep in mind 1) not all properties face medians, 2) the utility installations are not in the medians, 3) parking is not desired and is already illegal in the medians, and 4) it is my vision (at least) that we should further develop the medians so that there would be sufficient landscaping to prevent pedestrian traffic there anyway.
ReplyDeleteSo I don't think we could propose that the medians be used for overflow and access, so swales don't have to be.
Fred
Tom,
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that you used the word flame thrower to describe your title to get attention as I equated it to yelling fire in a crowded theater.
There are a number of misstatements in the flyer and I believe it was irresponsible for you to disseminate a flyer without vetting your assertions. Instruments such as these devices lead to disharmony in the neighborhood and are not helpful to civil conversations.
I'll take the title as an example, your front yard does not include the public right of way for many of the reasons that Fred has itemized above. The swale area covered in the proposed code may only be a portion of the public right of away (ROW) in your case. If you wish to understand this topic better Florida Statutes has an entire section that covers ROW’s and their purpose. It's a unique issue in Biscayne Park that was illuminated last night, many of the ROW’s in the Village vary from property to property. Gary Kuhl pointed out last night that you can use as a frame of reference the utility poles or water meter as a general guide as to where your property’s ROW exists.
The second position you have taken is that Chapter 5 reserves itself to transportation of vehicles and safety issues and that is solely the issue the board should be concerned about. Sec 5 of the BP code covers more than you specified and the board was charged several years ago to tackle the entire code as was also pointed out last night.
Lastly, I wish you had stayed for the entire meeting as there was a lot of the details discussed and progress made by the Review Board towards reconciling the various issues. Another meeting has been scheduled to continue the conversation.
Chuck
Chuck,
DeletePerhaps the silver lining in this is how we, the residents should (in future) approach a Village Workshop. In my opinion, a workshop should be a place for fact finding and discovery.
As I did not receive the flyer and did not see what was contained within, I will relay on your comments made above. Question: what purpose was served by a resident to take it upon themselves to distribute a flyer "prior" to getting all the facts first? How did this help the process? If, as you say, it contained misstatements and was meant to inflame the topic, then again, what purpose did it serve? Did it force change in the board's thinking.... probably not.
There is a time and place for bringing in the pitch folks. I just don't think the first workshop is it.
Wow... forks, not folks. This is what happens when I'm doing too many things at one time. Sorry about that.
DeleteFrom a shy neighbor, who wishes to be anonymous:
ReplyDelete"While the Board has recognized the real safety concerns -- there is another reason for swales that seems like it would speak loudly to the residents of Biscayne Park who are concerned about the environment. Swales are in fact not an aesthetic feature, but an engineering feature and should function as a place that can carry water to a place (on property or within the swale) where it can discharge safely into a sodded or landscaped ares. This allows the water to be absorbed into the ground and re-purposed rather than flowing into a storm drain which is important to protect our natural waterways.
When residents complain about drainage and flooding streets, often there is a lack of natural swale in the immediate area."
Monday's meeting of the two boards to discuss proposed changes to the code regarding swales was my first time reading the proposed changes in detail (which is completely my own doing... I didn't or couldn't attend the previous meetings or workshops about it).
ReplyDeleteI am in strong agreement with the proposed changes to swale use and appearance. The people who were against it seemed to not realize that it's public property, and not their yard or house. Their own house and yard can remain as unique as ever.
Another misconception I heard at the meeting was that a large number of properties would be affected. We walk A LOT, and there aren't that many properties that have tall landscaping or other hazards close to the road. You can easily go block after block without a single issue. It would be worthwhile to bring the ones that are an issue into compliance with a more attractive and safe swale. Walking around can absolutely be dangerous at times. Not all streets have medians, and even so, sometimes people walk on the side of the road with traffic. Cars/trucks can travel too fast and/or too close to the edge of the road. Sure, it's usually easy enough to move over, but not always. We, as well as other dog-walking friends, have had quite a few very close encounters with vehicles.
People don't seem to be aware of their property lines, so a useful link to share with concerned residents is http://www.miamidade.gov/propertysearch/index.html#/, or consult a surveyor if they want accurate boundaries. The rough guide of 0-5' (clear zone) and 5-8' (low zone) proposed here is a very fair compromise between having nothing in the public area and having some personalization to extend the theme of the front yard. I'm not sure why there are always people who are against making the village better/safer by enacting and enforcing stricter codes, but those codes will be critical in keeping this is a desireable place to live and move to!
To the relevant boards: thanks for all of your hard work and volunteered time in this long but necessary process. Additionally, the village is very fortunate to have a functional and proactive commission and manager who are really making huge strides in improving Biscayne Park for current and future residents!
Please note that significant changes have been made to the previous recommendations of the joint Boards. The changes permit unlimited height landscaping starting at 5 feet from the road, eliminating the low zone of maximum 3 feet in height.
ReplyDelete