Yesterday, Commissioner Mac Kennedy sent out the following e-mail to many of us on his general Village circulation:
SELECT “HOT DRIVEWAY TOPICS”
IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER OR RANKING OF IMPORTANCE
- All properties must provide off-street parking. That parking must be on private property rather than on “swales” or the public right of way along the street. The driveway must include an “approach” across the right of way. (This is not new.) Separate parking in the swale/ROW is allowed to an extent and addressed in a different part of the code, which we have just started working on to tighten that up, too.
- All driveways must be permitted and approved by the village and PZ. Never start work on a driveway before your permit is approved and a physical copy issued to you, which must be posted on your property. (This is not new.)
- No driveway may cover more than 40% of your front yard, regardless of the material you use. The rest of the front yard must be landscaped or green space. (This is new.)
- January 2, 2023, is the deadline for all properties to include an approved driveway per the new code. After that date, Code can cite you. (This is new.) In several places in the new code, you'll see that the village is giving owners a full year to comply.
- Properties with driveways that are not compliant with this new code may remain until they need 50% or more repaired. If any non-conforming driveway is added onto, it must be made fully compliant to the new code. (This is not new.) Existing driveways that need repairs of 50% or more now also have until January 2, 2023, to become fully compliant. That includes having an approach that reaches to the street, which is designed to match the driveway itself.
- The required number of off-street parking spaces (plus separate off-street visitor parking) is determined by the number of bedrooms. A table is included in the code. (This is not new, but it has been updated to include larger homes.) Driveways with inadequate parking spaces are grandfathered in until they are replaced or substantially repaired. However, all vehicles must be parked on approved surfaces. No vehicles may be parked on grass on private property. (This is not new.)
- All driveways must be of one material (list provided) or of one uniform design, all of which must be approved by the PZ before a permit is issued. Driveways may never be installed or replaced without a permit. (This has not changed substantially.)
- Milled asphalt, crushed limestone and grass/sod are no longer approved driveway materials. (This is new.)
- Gravel driveways must also be approved and permitted, and they must include a border. You may not simply dump gravel and spread it around and call it a driveway. (This is not new.)
- Concrete driveways may be stained or painted, but the color must be approved by PZ first. (This is new, but the palette has not been finalized by PZ, and it must then be approved by the commission. As of right now, no concrete driveways may be painted or stained until the commission approves the palette.)
- Edges along driveways must be relandscaped after installation. No bare soil, sand or gravel allowed along edges. (This is new.)
- No raised driveways or edges are allowed. (This is new.)
- Wheelstops have been determined to be a commercial application that is not allowed at single family homes or duplexes. Those are the concrete barriers commonly used in commercial parking lots. They will need to be removed. (This is new.)
- Driveways may not drain water onto adjoining properties or public properties including the right of way (streets). (This is new.)
- All driveways must be properly maintained, which includes sealing asphalt.
- If you replace or repair 50% or more of a driveway, you must replace the entire thing. (This is new.)
- If any part of a driveway is removed, it must be relandscaped or resodded.
This is the current Commission's effort to redo the driveways and swales Code. Mac correctly pointed out that some Commissions have honed and reformed this Code, but that none had reached what it considered an end point. And of course, from the end of 2016 until now, no Commission (represented by a majority that can cause anything to happen) has really worked on anything.
So, to the extent that Mac is right to say that the Commission has somehow come together to finish whatever adjustments were the ambition of this Commission, and possibly some former ones, this is good news. To say that some of the adjustments proposed are improvements over the previous Code is also good news.
There are a number of entries that Mac says are "not new." This means that we have had these parts of the Code already on the books, but we just haven't enforced them. There is no reason we shouldn't have enforced them. Because they have been part of the Code sometimes for decades, and we haven't enforced them (for who knows what reasons), there is no reason to assume we will enforce them now. So this is not quite so good news.
And it's worth noting that some of the particulars that Mac says are new are in fact not new. Items 3 and 16 are like that. And item 5 disqualifies the deadline in item 4, so that's not great news, either.
And we have still not disallowed impervious parking surfaces, which in my opinion, is not good news. For example, item 14 prohibits homeowners from designing parking surfaces that will drain into the street. If the surface is impermeable, where would it drain water? I realize this is an assertive stance for the Village to take, but it's the job of leadership to take assertive stances. And it's what the Village needs.
Other than that, it's a good and progressive move for the Village if we tighten up the driveways and swales Code. I hope we do it. And whether we remember the requirements that are not new, or impose requirements that are new, if we don't enforce them, then we've accomplished nothing.
If we do require pervious surfaces on the swale, we should also make sure that they are kept free of weeds.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, and the criticism is not overlooked.
DeleteI should add, Dan, that the wish to have conspicuous areas of the Village kept free of weeds is coming, in this case, from a very unexpected source of opinion and aesthetic sense.
DeleteFred
#3 is new in regards to the materials allowed up to 40%. The prior version made the distinction between permeable and impermeable materials, allowing gravel driveways to be up to 100% of the front yard. That loophole was close. #16 is new altogether. The prior code used 50% disrepair as the trigger to require driveway improvements, but now 50% requires the entire driveway to be replaced. Whether things are "new" or not is immaterial. I added those notes so folks would understand that we didn't rewrite the entire code and that I was listing things they should be aware of regardless of whether they were "new" or not. Had I listed only newness, other critical details would have been missed in my announcement, requiring the reader to pore through the entire code section. I was merely trying to provide as much salient info as possible in one list.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the enforcement part of the conversation, I agree. However, commissions and commissioners individually don't enforce anything ... other than, as a body, requiring the manager to enforce. The commission is tasked with legislating: deciding what the code includes that should be enforced. That's what we did with the off-street parking part of our existing code. We made it better, in our opinions, and we did that with input from the relevant board, our attorneys and staff, and from residents during a series of public meetings.
Missed the comment about #14. Water runoff will need to drain into the yard to percolate down into the water table ... not back into the street. That was the point, that driveways can't cause flooding. When we discuss swales, that will be discussed again. We have many areas of the village that flood, at least in part (some large) because asphalt swales force rain back into the street rather than into yards. Water flows to the lowest point, and that can't be in the street.
ReplyDeleteMac,
DeleteThank you for the clarifications.
I disagree that the prior Code permitted more than 40% "improvement."
As for the "50%" rule, the rule was that if 50% of a driveway, or the overall structure, was subjected to renovation of any kind, then the whole driveway, or overall structure, had to come into compliance with all relevant Codes. That's why I think nothing is really different now, and our problem has always been a failure to enforce.
Regarding runoff, it certainly makes sense that the intention would be that the pitch of the parking surface would be that water would be directed to permeable substances, like dirt, plantings, or grass, but if the Code doesn't say that, and if the parking surface is allowed to be impermeable, then there's really no way to get/force the intended goal to happen. And maybe when you say your summary omitted certain "critical details," you might mean that the new proposed Codes do in fact specify that. But I was only working from what you sent.
I totally agree that past Commissions did not lean on managers to enforce the Codes, and if the present and future Commissions don't, either, then, as I said, we will have accomplished nothing.
Fred
Congratulations Mac on tackling and passing the new driveway codes. Makes a lot of sense to separate the swales/ROW codes as well as to not encumber the previous with the latter.
ReplyDeleteAs we move away this week from our beloved Village I send out some parting thoughts.
Code should audit the entire village with photography and visual inspections to create a report that lists compliance, non-compliance and an associated measure of severity on a 5 point scale so as to provide guidance to which properties need to be addressed with highest priority. It’s my experience that the most egregious violations are left to fester but lesser infractions are immediately addressed. It’s a human nature issue I think… path of least resistance gets the attention?
And, not all residents have the ability nor resources to bring their homes up to code or proper states of repair. These cases should be handled with great care sensitivity. And possibly the BP Foundation could be used to raise the sufficient funds to front the repairs. The funds could be in the form of a grant, else a zero-interest loan payable upon sale of property in the future. A lien could placed on the property to ensure its reimbursement to the foundation as needed.
Finally that the village set the tone and standard for the beauty and aesthetic it seeks in its own public areas. Some of our roads and medians/parks are not well-maintained. The good tree replacement program notwithstanding, the under canopies could all benefit from smart landscape architecture.
Oh, Rafa,
DeleteWe will miss you and Eddie. The very best of wishes for your adjustment back in Texas.
You make an interesting suggestion in your paragraph #3. It's certainly true that the easiest request to make is of someone who generally already demonstrates a tendency to keep a nice property, and has maybe let some relatively minor matter (d)evolve.
Your paragraph #4 is tricky, and it leads to the conclusion that maybe some people are just not suited for home ownership and maintenance. And a characterological willingness to follow rules. But you've anticipated that kind of limitation by suggesting that there could be what amounts to an imposed loan, which will be paid back via settlement of a lien. Good thinking.
I've been all over your paragraph #5 for years, and you're about to leave, so I have no expectation anyone will pay any more attention to your wishes for the Village than they did to mine. Thanks for the echo, though.
Fred
Thanks Fred! Just to clarify - there’s have to be demonstrable need and possibly a retiree status. The intention is more about caring for longtime residents in their golden years who otherwise had the means in the past. For what it’s worth.
ReplyDeleteRafa,
DeleteI would go further than that. Things do happen to people who are not yet in their "golden years," and people in their "golden years" who have new problems or reverses can become unable to meet responsibilities they were once able to meet.
Some years ago (possibly before you and Eddie moved here), we had a BP resident who had gotten divorced, whose daughter was very impaired, and who could not afford a new roof that was needed. The custodial parent was the father, and I don't remember what was his work. I would certainly not have asked about his financial circumstances. We tried to raise the money through private donations, but we couldn't get there. I don't know if these were "longtime" residents or not as long time. But we wanted to help them in ways they could not help themselves. Your idea would have been a great help.
Fred