The non-native population of chickens and roosters continue to grown rapidly here in Palmetto Bay. A fellow resident posted the following regarding chickens in Palmetto Bay Park on Next Door - I am posting part here for content, but protecting her identity:
Hello Neighbors. I had posted about my love of animals (even the ones I would never want to touch), and I have found a couple beautiful roosters and chickens that were dumped in the Palmetto Bay Park near my home. I would love to know that someone could catch them and give them a safe home. Please contact me if I can help you catch them.
I would never ever want them to be tortured and killed like the ducks in our park.
(bold emphasis added)
Note how this animal lover fears that harm may come to these hens and rosters much like the mayhem that Palmetto Bay Officials caused to the ducks at Coral Reef Park.
Some interesting and telling comments to the post:
I bring them rice etc. but they don’t belong in the park and someone’s gonna hurt them. I don’t know about you but I’ve lived here 32 years and not until this past year did I see them
*** *** ***
I've seen those in the area for a while (over a year) . Don't think they were dumped. I do believe they are cared for by someone in the area.
Note that many people raised chickens in Palmetto Bay long before the Vice Mayor promoted Ordinance 2023-12, but we have seen an explosion of chickens and roosters establishing feral locations since this law. Some call the non-native loose roosters nature's alarm clocks while others simply refer to them as a nuisance. I even heard from a chicken keeper that she fears roosters visiting her hen house and fertilizing the eggs. No one wants to crack open a fertilized egg. Ordinance 2023-12 may have been well intentioned, but it was not well thought out or implemented.
Prior RELATED POSTS:
August 14, 2024, Reader submissions - Chickens & Roosters multiplying at Coral Reef Park - non-native species appear to be thriving.
August 1, 2024, Chickens can be raised properly in Palmetto Bay - It was done. That was before Ordinance 2023-12.
July 22, 2024, Coral Reef Park and the Mangowood community have a morning wake up alarm.
“… (Palmetto Bay elected officials) failed to follow the essential requirements of the law, rendered a decision wholly unsupported by competent substantial evidence and subjected Petitioner to reverse spot zoning that resulted in a confiscatory taking of its real property.”
This is not an order that makes Village residents proud. It is a very strong indictment of a poorly run hearing. Or, in my opinion, so ruled the three judge panel of the Appellate Division of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit on September 10, 2024, in the case of FAIRCHILD BAY SUBDIVISION LLC VS VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, 2023-000033-AP-01
WHAT WAS AT ISSUE?: The issue for the zoning hearing was simple – the Property is designated as “low density residential” on the Village comp plan. The property is currently zoned agricultural. This property is located at 9000 SW 174 Street – firmly ensconced on a low density residential area. It is a small property, too small for the agricultural designation and, in fact, this property is NOT an active agricultural use – it is currently a single home, one of the last pieces of property that once made up a vibrant mango grove (this ended long before Palmetto Bay was even an idea). This was not an application for high density apartments. To the contrary – the applicant sought to built homes at one dwelling (single family home) per 15,000 net feet of land (same as surrounding homes).
I had posted about this recent order back on September 11, 2024 – See PRIOR RELATED POST - Fully unfavorable decision rendered against the Village of Palmetto Bay by the court in FAIRCHILD BAY SUBDIVISION LLC VS VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, 2023-000033-AP-01. As I stated then, This decision hurts. You can’t spin it, though I am sure they will try. I was wrong. Even the village team of spin doctors did not want to try and touch this one. Instead they hope you don’t notice.
The order is now final. So what is the damage? Here are the findings of the court that are now accepted:
The most outrageous statement comes from Mayor Cunningham – this opinion singles her out for opposing the rezoning because there is “nothing really that requires us to change the zoning.” (top of page 5 of the opinion) Wrong! This statement was featured as part of how the court determined that she, as part of the entire council, failed to follow the essential requirements of law. (The mayor and council also failed to follow the Staff recommendation as well as the recommendations of the Village Attorney). Yes, despite that fact that she has been on the counsel since 2015, she has yet to figure out the Code or her responsibilities of actually following the Code or the law. Some may say, don’t blame her, she’s not an attorney. But two members of the Village Council do have law degrees, and even though neither practice law, both also were also outed by the court for failing to follow the Village Code as well as the essential requirements of law. Further, these two council members failed the community by not engaging any legal common sense and by not directing the mayor to focus on the facts of the application and to properly apply the Village Code and the Law. This is part of a never ending pattern of ignoring the law – see December 13, 2023, Court slaps down Palmetto Bay's zoning appeal -- more units for Old Cutler Road
The Court was strong in the language. See page 11-12 of the Fairchild order, where the court discussed how wrong she/they is/are on their failure to follow the law. The Court reviewed Palmetto Bay’s Code of Ordinances (which the mayor had significant input on crafting) – section 30-30.7 in this case where the Process and Criteria for review are enumerated. The court noted how none – NONE – of the council members [including the mayor – questioned the applicant on any of the enumerated criteria (bottom of page 13 of the order)], but instead focused on irrelevant issues. The court determined that the mayor and council – they all - failed to follow the essential requirements of law.
The Village really cannot recover from this opinion (along with the beat down received in the Palmetto Bay Village Center cases). But the voters can replace two of the offending council members next month and bring fresh perspective along with people who will properly follow the Village’s Codes and Law.
As detailed on page 17 of the order, the judges determined that they were “constrained to find that the Council unjustifiably applied their own unenumerated criteria in denying (the applicant’s} rezoning application, In so doing, the Council Also disregarded the Village’s Comprehensive Plan ….” [legalese for the court finding that the Mayor and Council made up their own rules that were inconsistent (contrary to) the law].
Accordingly, the Village failed to follow the essential requirements of law. (page 17 of the order, bold emphasis added)
The Village Officials are accepting their failures while hoping that no one will notice. (Obviously because it is not election time).
Take notice voters! Zoning is an essential function of the Village Council. Their continued failures cost you in higher taxes and bad zoning decisions.
I received this campaign email on Wednesday, September 25,2004. I was struck by its simplicity and how positive this political message is for Palmetto Bay - CLICK HERE to view this actual message online.
 | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Both David and his opponent sought this endorsement and both were interviewed by the board. Many factors were considered in this endorsement - and so often endorsements like these go to the incumbent office holders, which is part of what makes this endorsement so significant.
Why is this important - Realtors serve in the purchase and sale of property - most often seen in the residential market - which for most is the biggest investment people make in their lives. Positive communities retain their value and sell - toxicity drives values down.
Groups like the Miami Realtors work for their clients - and a positive market. They do not seek contracts, zoning applications or concessions before local government - again - they work for their clients.
About the Miami Realtors (information taken from the website):
The MIAMI Association of Realtors (MIAMI) was chartered by the National Association of Realtors in 1920 and is celebrating 104 years of service to Realtors, the buying and selling public, and the communities in South Florida. Comprised of six organizations: MIAMI RESIDENTIAL, MIAMI COMMERCIAL; BROWARD-MIAMI, a division of MIAMI Realtors; JTHS-MIAMI, a division of MIAMI Realtors in the Jupiter-Tequesta-Hobe Sound area; MIAMI YPN, our Young Professionals Network Council; and the award-winning MIAMI Global Council. MIAMI REALTORS represents nearly 60,000 total real estate professionals in all aspects of real estate sales, marketing, and brokerage. It is the largest local Realtor association in the U.S. and has official partnerships with 260+ international organizations worldwide.
Congratulations David Singer.
Please call or text me at (305) 302-3713 if you have any information
or see him. I am offering a reward for information leading to its return.
He has been a member of the family since 2004.
And more. For those who follow Instagram. (you have to follow the link - Instagram videos can not be embedded).
Visiting New York City? You may run into a quote from Alex Flinn's NY Times #1 bestseller Beastly as part of a new ad campaign featuring supermodel Kaia Gerber, the face of DKNY, who also recently starred in the Palm Beach based series, Palm Royale.
More about the ad campaign - Trey Laird, Founder, and Chief Creative Officer at Team Laird, who worked on the campaign’s creative direction, notes, “The concept of the campaign was an inspiring opportunity to connect DKNY’s love of all things New York with Kaia’s love of literature in a pure authentic way.” See: Fashion Gone Rogue - Kaia Gerber Lights Up NYC in DKNY Fall 2024 Ad, Joanna Elizabeth, Published August 19, 2024
About Alex Flinn - Alex Flinn is the author of the #1 New York Times bestselling Beastly, a spin on Beauty and the Beast that was named a VOYA Editor’s Choice and an ALA Quick Pick for Reluctant Young Adult Readers. Beastly was made into a major motion picture in 2010. Stars include Vanessa Hudgens, Neil Patrick Harris, Dakota Johnson, and Mary-Kate Olsen.
I love to hear from readers and find it interesting what some readers point out to me. I verified and I am passing it on. I am posting pictures below that really do expose the current vice mayor and other elected officials of this village for the ‘do as we say, not as we do” mentality.
BACKGROUND – One of my most popular posts in recent history
was September 11, 2024, Fully unfavorable decision rendered against the Village
of Palmetto Bay by the court in FAIRCHILD BAY SUBDIVISION LLC VS VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, 2023-000033-AP-01.
As detailed in the Court's opinion of September 10, 2024,
“A thorough review of the record fails to establish substantial compete evidence to support the Village’s decision. The Respondent (Palmetto Bay) fails to identify any specific material and relevant statements from the public hearing that constitute substantial compete evidence. The evidence primarily addressed the Property’s ownership history, the potential loss of mango trees and Petitioner’s site plan for the future development of the Property...."(bold and underline access added)
Residents speaking against the project, as did the current
Vice Mayor, were concerned for the loss of the mango trees located on the
applicant’s property. Yes, that is right, as the court outlined in thee order (on
page 4):
“Vice Mayor Tellam questioned the existing mango trees on the
Property and potential loss of shade, …” (Sounds great, but wait until you get
to the pictures below and prior post references to see the difference between her talk and the actual action)
Back to the background contained in the order. The court really took this counsel to task. Outlining the relevant criteria in the
applicable Code of Ordinances, (pages 11-13 of the Order). I find it a bit embarrassing
that the court opinion recognized, and pointed out (last paragraph on page 13)
that:
Rather than question Petitioner’s counsel regarding any of the above enumerated criteria, Counsel members asked questions related to the cost to acquire the Property; the Property’s ownership history; the Property’s topography; the potential loss of mango trees; and Petitioner’s site plan for the future development of the Property. ….
It was noted in this opinion that
“None of the questions, … or discussion by Council members were relevant to the established criteria for rezoning.” (Bold emphasis added)
This is quite an indictment. Now if the above wasn’t bad enough (a true traffic wreck of a zoning hearing), it gets worse. And for this I am simply relying upon the photos below. What do they show? Here is my opinion (and as discussed with others who pointed this out to me):
The Vice Mayor says she wants to protect the mango trees –
but apparently only on the applicant’s property (private property, not owned by
the Village). Her alleged concern at zoning hearings does not match what has happened on village property under her watch. Look at the before and after photos of the property where the
Village maintains the Public Works facility.
Look how all the shade trees – including many mature, long-time producing
mango trees were cleared in 2024 – this year – so that village vehicles can park
(no longer in the shade) on dirt (unpaved) grounds. Would private property owners be allowed to
do this? Of course not, as I stated earlier this is Vice Mayor Tellam once
again showing disdain for trees on Village owned property and right of ways. It has happened under this vice mayor and present council all along SW 136 Street for the mega sidewalk: Coral Reef Park: the Public Works building and soon
to Coral Reef Park - where several mature oaks will be cleared for the community
room.
No environmentalist would stand by and allow this to happen. Unfortunately we see here another politician who claims to be an environmentalist; but is really anything but.
Yes, the before and after pictures are of the Village property located on the far south end of Palmetto Bay Park. This is our elected officials doing their worst to set a bad example for all private property owners.
A clear case of “do as I say, not as I do.” It really is sad;
the trees have no chance in Palmetto Bay under this current council.
But it is sadder to see the blatant hypocrisy in how trees
are treated on private property versus land owned by Palmetto Bay under this
current council.
Prior related posts on how this current council does not value trees or a property tree canopy:
This decision hurts. You can’t spin it, though I am sure they will try. I am putting out the opinion rendered yesterday, Tuesday, September 10, 2024, in the case of FAIRCHILD BAY SUBDIVISION LLC VS VILLAGE OFPALMETTO BAY, 2023-000033-AP-01
The Court: the decision to deny Appellant’s zoning reclassification was arbitrary, unreasonable and confiscatory.
“… (Palmetto Bay) failed to follow the essential requirements of the law, rendered a decision wholly unsupported by competent substantial evidence and subjected Petitioner to reverse spot zoning that resulted in a confiscatory taking of its real property.”
Ouch
What was lost here was any opportunity to actually protect the neighbors through attempting to reach a reasonable
compromise. Any compromise could have included covenants and other ways to protect the
community in the future. Of course, it
is too hard for this current group to make a decision based upon the evidence and properly
apply the law. That takes skill as an elected official (that they lack) as well as political guts. It is much easier for this group to play to
the Plebiscite and then blame the courts (or others before them) when their poor decision(s) hits the fan.
The court cited staff reports and testimony where the
applicants could not meet the requirements of the zoning code under the current
designation (see page 16 of the opinion) (which is why they were seek a change –
to be compatible with the surrounding areas).
As detailed in the opinion,
“A thorough review of the record fails to establish substantial compete evidence to support the Village’s decision. The Respondent (Palmetto Bay) fails to identify any specific material and relevant statements from the public hearing that constitute substantial compete evidence. The evidence primarily addressed the Property’s ownership history, the potential loss of mango trees and Petitioner’s site plan for the future development of the Property...."
By the way, the application was filed February 23, 2023 (see
foot note 1 on page 2 of the decision). This means this entire action falls upon
the Elected Officials elected in 2000 and 2022. This was based upon the municipal
code put in place by that (current) group of elected officials.
This was not an error in the defense of this certiorari action,
this is an error that started before the zoning hearing. The errors occurred in how the elected
officials failed to properly manage the zoning matter; in essence – well, as
the opinion stated:
“(Palmetto Bay) failed to follow the essential requirements of the law, rendered a decision wholly unsupported by competent substantial evidence rind subjected Petitioner to reverse spot zoning that resulted in a confiscatory taking of its real property.”
The lesson is that if you deny, the mayor and village council better have some evidence to base their denial on. They didn’t. The lost and now the village residents will pay the price for their foolishness.
This is a long opinion, designed (in my opinion) to provide guidance
in order to prevent future errors.
The closing paragraph is the concurring opinion fairly sums this up:
For the reasons stated in the majority opinion, the decision to deny Appellant’s zoning reclassification was arbitrary, unreasonable and confiscatory. Kugel, 206 So. 2d at 285 (finding denial of a rezoning request unreasonable and arbitrary where “[t]he character of the property has already been changed by other actions of the municipality.”). Accordingly, I would grant the Writ of Certiorari because Respondent failed to follow the essential requirements of the law, rendered a decision wholly unsupported by competent substantial evidence and subjected Petitioner to reverse spot zoning that resulted in a confiscatory taking of its real property.
More to come at some future date. For now, I will wait for any village spin. No matter how you spin it, this decision does NOT reflect well upon the officials of the Village of Palmetto Bay.
And note, this decision is "not final" until any motion for rehearing is disposed of, but I doubt very seriously the decision will be reversed upon any request for reconsideration.
I have kept track of our Village History throughout this blog. Feel free to search this blog for numerous posts regarding our Palmetto Bay history. Start HERE.
