An insight as to why things are in Palmetto Bay.
Why does it appear that the owners of the Palmetto Bay Village Center (PBVC) are more concerned about protecting these 22 acres than our current Village officials (Council Member David Singer excluded as he has been on record as working to protect these 22 acres).
The PBVC is working toward completing long term work to deed over these 22 acres; land that was designated as environmentally endangered by Miami-Dade County in 2008 [at the request of the original mayor (me) and village council], a designation supported by Biscayne National Park. In 2009 and again in 2017 the Village expressed continued support for public acquisition of this precious land. Quite frankly many of the current elected officials have played so many divisive political games with this property, that I believe they have boxed themselves in and don’t know who to resolve this issue.
Why do so many ongoing issues involving the Current Mayor and Council appear to be a knife fight rather than rational conversations held in public? I include the following in these examples: LUXCOM, the DUV, litigation against Miami-Dade County (Over a 4 way stop) and now the PBVC, Why can’t we engage in protecting our environment without making it appear that Rock Pinelands is a bad idea (maybe protecting Pinelands are a ‘Liberal’ issue for them).
“You made it very clear at the September 1 public hearing that you think that the proposed Declaration does not need to exist.”
Attorneys for the PBVC continue to make clear that it is their position that:
“The
property that our client intends to donate to the Village (the "Donation
Site") includes mangroves, pines and hammocks that are prized for their
beneficial wildlife usage and biological diversity. Substantial portions of the
Donation Site were designated as environmentally endangered by Miami-Dade
County in 2008, a designation supported by Biscayne National Park. In 2009 and
again in 2017 the Village expressed continued support for public acquisition of
this precious land, contingent upon securing a small portion of the Donation
Site for use as a fire station.”
I wholeheartedly agree. And that is why I have worked since this village incorporated to obtain this land to be held by the public, to maintain it (for all the reasons stated in the Declaration of Covenants prepared by Sara Barli Herald, Esq.)
The entire four (4) page letter should be carefully read in its entirety as it provides a recital of the ongoing history of efforts to obtain and preserve this land. I am proud that I have participated from inception and have been a large part of this effort as were so many others, unfortunately none of those who currently sit on the council have any institutional knowledge or prior involvement other than (for some) their work to undermine and frustrate the efforts to pull this property off the development list and protect these 22 acres for our future generations.
A
prior mayor, (not me!) once even sponsored legislation to allow development of
these 22 acres. This was a proposal to build houses in these very 22 acres, deferring only
temporary (until the process ended with the 2014 election). Factual
information can be found online - See the 7/22/2014 article, Palmetto Bay council defers old Burger King property
zoning; approves Palmer Trinity’s site-plan changes, by Lola Duffort.
It is my opinion that the follow restrictive covenants are critical! So why do Village Officials appear to be refusing to provide for these very important protections? Number 8 is critical in that it states that this is intended to benefit and run in favor of the residents and property owners of the Village and (best of all) they (we, the people) shall have the right to enforce, all restrictions, conditions and covenants imposed by the provisions of this Declaration. (all emphasis added)
The Covenants protect this property for a 50 year period. It is also a comprehensive, well-reasoned covenant, not merely a “visual barrier”.
My closing plea: It is time to close this chapter in Palmetto Bay politics. I realize that some will lose the very political football that they have enjoyed employing, but it is time for leadership, political maturity and bring an end to these 22 acres – for at least the next 50 years!
The residents of Palmetto Bay need this covenant. And residents should demand an additional requirement that forbids a modification of the covenant unless approved by a super majority of the residents. A zoning development order sounds nice, but can be easily set aside by a 3-2 vote of the village council. A covenant needs to be put in place.
Follow ‘read more’ to view items with more specificity. I have set out the main covenants. I remain insistent that you read the entire 5 page document.
The following excerpts are taken verbatim from the proposed covenant submitted by the attorneys for the PBVC:
1. Restrictions; Covenant Running With The Land. Declarant covenants, agrees and certifies, in so far as the rights, powers, interests and authority of the Declarant is concerned, that there shall be no development or construction on the Property except as specifically permitted by this Declaration. All restrictions in this Declaration are binding upon any transferees, lessees, heirs or assigns of the Declarant, and all parties having any right, title or interest in the Property or any part thereof, and their heirs, successors and assigns. This Declaration shall constitute a covenant running with the land.
2. Preservation As Conservation Area. The Declarant donates the Property for preservation to be held in trust for the education, pleasure and recreation of the public, and the Property shall be used and maintained in a manner which will leave the Property unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations as part of the public's irreplaceable heritage. The Property shall be permanently protected and preserved solely as a public passive park and natural conservation area to ensure the continued preservation of the Village’s environmental assets and utilized only for wetlands, woodland areas, natural features, and wildlife habitat; and shall be used for no other purpose ( the “Restrictive Covenant”) except as specifically provided for in this Declaration. The Property shall be protected from commercial development and exploitation, of any kind, and its natural landscape, flora and fauna and scenic beauty shall be preserved as required by Article 7, Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter (as amended through November 6, 2018). For purposes of this Declaration “Passive Park” shall mean that the Property shall be limited to undeveloped space or environmentally sensitive activities that require minimal development and that emphasize preservation of wildlife and the environment. Passive Park activities shall place minimal stress on the Property's natural resources. Hiking, walking, running, bicycling, wildlife viewing, observing and photographing wildlife are Passive Park activities and are the only activities permitted. Active recreational facilities such as sports fields, bleachers or pavilions are not permitted. The Restrictive Covenant shall be perpetual in nature and run to the benefit of the residents and property owners of the Village.
3. Fire Station. That portion of the Property more particularly described on Exhibit “B”, and generally depicted on Exhibit “B-1” (the “Fire Station Parcel”) may be used as a fire rescue station and for no other purpose other than the uses specifically permitted under Section 2 of this Declaration
4. Trails. The Property may include de minimis passive recreational paved or crushed aggregate hiking and non-motorized biking trails (the “Trails”).
5. Ancillary Structures. The Property may include a facility or structure that is ancillary to the use of the Property and enhances the use of the Property as a Passive Park which facility shall not exceed 1500 square feet in size and must not be visible from Old Cutler Road, S.W. 184th Street or any roads located on the Retained Parcel.
6. Parking. Parking for the Passive Park shall only be permitted on the Library Donation Site. Parking for the Village library and community center shall only be permitted on the Library Donation Site. If a fire station is built on the Fire Station Parcel, parking on the Fire Station Parcel shall be limited to parking for the Fire Station and the Passive Park.
7. Signage. No commercial signage of any kind shall be permitted on the Property, including but not limited to, billboards. The Village can place wayfinding signage on the Property and signage ancillary to the use of the Passive Park. The Declarant retains the right to modify or replace all of Declarant’s signage, if any, currently on the Property at Declarant’s sole expense. No other signage shall be permitted on the Property.
8. Beneficiary. This Declaration is intended to benefit and run in favor of the residents and property owners of the Village and they shall have the right to enforce, all restrictions, conditions and covenants imposed by the provisions of this Declaration.
9. Enforcement Actions. The prevailing party in any action or suit pertaining to or arising out of this Declaration shall be entitled to recover, in addition to costs and disbursements allowed by law, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as well as attorneys’ fees and cost incurred in enforcing this prevailing parties attorneys’ fees provision. This enforcement provision shall be in addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity.
10. Term. The restrictions,
covenants and conditions of this Declaration shall run with and bind the
Property, the Declarant and all subsequent owners of the Property, for a term
of fifty (50) years from the date of recording, after which time the
restriction shall be extended automatically for successive periods of ten (10)
years each, for the Property to which the covenants, conditions and restrictions
apply
_________________________
Some post script notes.
In 2004 a charrette process was done that included 590 units, commercial space, a school and hotel which went through a public process – 42 public meetings were held. The process resulted in the 2008 adoption of the VMU (Village Mixed Use district). This VMU was a significant reduction and not an expansion of the rights granted to the property from prior County actions. Where there had previously been up to 1,465 units or approximately 1.25 million sq. ft. of commercial, the new VMU limited development to 400 units, a hotel and about 550,000 sq. ft. of commercial, down from almost twice that. It left the front 22 acres to be determined at a later date based on a trending of development rights. Note that the 22 acres in dispute were not included in the VMU. Since, I have been trying to save the 22 acres from development without unilaterally taking away property rights.
Resolution no. 09-11 was passed on January 12, 2009, during my prior term. The goal contained in the resolution was to try and acquire this parcel with help from the Environmental Endangered (EEL) Funds from the County. Why? To ensure they would not be developed. That goal, however, was seemingly dropped by the subsequent council (which included the present Vice Mayor) – No action was taken on it after I left office in November 2010. Now ask yourself, why would the initial council attempt to get the County to buy lands that some argued were “protected”? The answer is because the lands were endangered – meaning they were threatened by potential future development. Th2 22-acre parcel was under a covenant requiring a visual landscape screen to block the view of the commercial building from Old Cutler Road, not a ban from development. The facts of the covenant were discussed in detailed by our village attorney at the council meeting of Monday, May 2nd. The covenant could survive no more than 30 years, and the visual screen requirement expires in 2019.
The previous council (serving during 2010-2014) also had a proposal to build houses in these very 22 acres, deferring only temporary (until the process ended with the 2014 election). Factual information can be found online - See the 7/22/2014 article, Palmetto Bay council defers old Burger King property zoning; approves Palmer Trinity’s site-plan changes, by Lola Duffort . Note the effort was deferred (e.g., meaning to be taken up again at a later date) NOT denied.
No comments:
Post a Comment