Ordinances are local laws. Following the Ordinances previously put in place would stop the chaos and go far in resolving the toxic council.

Thank you, readers, – for the feedback on one of my recent posts regarding civility. I am sure there are more questions than I received personally, so I will address the general conversation I had over the weekend. I was asked about the enforceability of the Palmetto Bay Ordinances. The topic was stimulated by my blog post of Friday, May 10, 2024.

It was, perhaps, a mistake to use the term “rules” as the rules discussed in the post are contained in an Ordinance.

And yes, an Ordinance differs from a resolution.  State Law defines them both in Section 166.041:

(a) “Ordinance” means an official legislative action of a governing body, which action is a regulation of a general and permanent nature and enforceable as a local law. 

(b) “Resolution” means an expression of a governing body concerning matters of administration, an expression of a temporary character, or a provision for the disposition of a particular item of the administrative business of the governing body.

See Online Sunshine - Section166.041 Procedures for adoption of ordinances and resolutions.—

A short legal opinion on following the rules is Yes, an ordinance is a law. Breaking an ordinance is basically breaking a local law for all practical purposes. The question is whether anyone is willing or has the means to enforce that ordinance.  When the Mayor or other members of the village council fail to follow an ordinance, they fail to follow the law.

No Village Official, elected, Charter or staff, - has the right or privilege to ignore or act contrary to any village ordinance.

Bottom line is elections matter and the the failure to follow village ordinances have been documented for you to decide. Some people enjoy it as entertainment, but this is not how elected officials were intended to behave, at least per the Palmetto Bay Ordinances. 

Miami’s Cafecito Culture Life and what makes us unique in the world - too bad it is Cafecito Cancelled Culture here in Palmetto Bay.

Artists can make their point through art, but it has to reach an audience that appreciates and understands.

Does anyone else see the irony here?

Let me highlight it for those that have missed recent controversies:

Local officials will allow it to be displayed on the wall as an art exhibit, but they don’t want you to enjoy it live here in Palmetto Bay. El Cafecito Culture – cancelled in Palmetto Bay.

“Village of Palmetto Bay
Don't Miss "El Cafecito Culture" By Joe Rodriguez, Saturday, March 19th at 6:30 pm at the Perrine Community House.”

Let’s hope that this artist brought some culture to Palmetto Bay officials and convinced them to embrace, rather than reject, the unique Miami Culture.

“I invite you to step into the passion I have for my culture, and through my art, take with you slices of Miami’s Cafecito Culture Life and what makes us unique in the world!

I’m Joe Rodriquez, I’m part of el Cafecito Culture. Sabor mi gente!”

I wonder if any of the Palmetto Bay officials took the time to appreciate and, if so, I hope there was an awakening. See post of November 4, 2021, We should embrace Ventanitas here in Palmetto Bay. It's a Miami thing, another way for the community to gather, asking Why can't we embrace La "Ventanitas" here in Palmetto Bay? 

But let's fact it, this art exhibit proved a point (as Art often does), when it comes to recognizing the meaning of art, well, our current mayor and council are clearly philistines. This significance of this exhibit clearly went over their heads as while they think it was a distraction from their building code banishment of Miami’s Cafecito Culture Life, so many of us see this exhibit for what it is. 

What compounds this is the fact that is is at least the second example in the last year – see a prior post of 9/30/2021: "Missed message": Ignoring Cortada’s message as the current mayor once again misses the importance of going native – a Wildflower Meadow could have been planted, but we get – instead - another wasteful grass lawn.

Art - can be a strong communication medium for those who care to listen. And while the current mayor and council can keep deflecting and denying, but facts are facts. See: October 26, 2021, Facts are important. Claims from Palmetto Bay elected officials and staff, stating that Ventanitas are not “banned”, do not appear to line up with the experience of Vicky’s Bakery, the updated ordinance or staff presentation at the hearing. Read/see for yourself.

Enough said, however, nice exhibit "El Cafecito Culture" by Joe Rodriguez, it spoke loudly.  Well played.

Facts are important. Claims from Palmetto Bay elected officials and staff, stating that Ventanitas are not “banned”, do not appear to line up with the experience of Vicky’s Bakery, the updated ordinance or staff presentation at the hearing. Read/see for yourself.

Credibility is important. Facts are facts. Are the mayor and the council unaware as to what they voted on or are they desperately dog paddling for air to escape what they have done?

What am I talking about? Well, it has been the talk of Miami, starting with the article in the Miami Herald - ‘Either stupidity or racism’: Is Palmetto Bay really trying to ban Cuban ventanitas? By Samantha J. Gross and Carlos Frias, 10/22/2021: Miami Herald subscribers can read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/miami-com/restaurants/article255188817.html#storylink=cpy

The facts are telling.  The herald quotes a staffer who denies that Ventanitas are banned alleging that:

“They have never been prohibited, and they are not prohibited now,” Community and Economic Development Director Maria Pineda told the Miami Herald. “We just have to take a look at parameters, just like we look at parameters for outdoor seating.” Ventanitas can be pivotal to Latin bakeries’ success.

Hold on there – is this true? So then does Vicky’s Bakery have a Ventanita? The Herald reporters checked in with Vicky Bakery CEO Pedro Cao who stated that:

Vicky Bakery had to work around a Palmetto Bay rule that didn’t allow for a walk-up window when it opened its village store two years ago. The owners had to build a window 2 feet inside the building, behind double doors, hurting visibility from the street, Cao said. (bold emphasis added)

There are many who would argue that a window placed 2 feet inside the building is NOT a Ventanita.

Is a Ventanita important?

“About 25-30% of a bakery’s business comes from the walk-up window, said Vicky Bakery CEO Pedro Cao, who has a franchise in Palmetto Bay. Often the window is a major draw for people driving by who see it and decide to pop in for a quick coffee or pastry. “

So who is reporting or telling the truth? What was said at the meeting? What was presented in writing?

It appears that their purpose was very specific. It says that all sales shall be inside the establishment and walk up sales windows shall not be permitted. It is the use or consumption of merchandise that shall not be permitted except by conditional use approval. So this looks to be very clear that in the B 1 limited business district, the walk up windows are specifically banned.

A conditional use application would not apply as “…walk up sales windows shall not be permitted.” It does NOT say that walk up windows require conditional use approval. Nope  - “not permitted.”

Page 35 from the agenda is pictured at the bottom wiht an excerpt posted to the right. A 21 second video clip of the staff report is embedded below. Please watch the excerpt. The 21 seconds are VERY important. What I hear is that staff is clearly stating that walk up windows are banned consistent with council request. Again, walk up window, as opposed to drive through windows. Please listen for yourself.

 

If not the B-1 zoning district, then how about the B-2 zoning District? B2 also includes a ban as walk up windows are not listed uses (items 1-14 additional to those uses permitted in the B1 district). Walk up windows are not listed under accessory uses or conditional uses (limited to items 1-4). "Prohibited uses include all uses that are not specifically listed in the section." I don’t see how or where Ventanitas are permitted in either of these zoning districts.

Facts are facts. What did the ordinance say? Here is the applicable page from the zoning hearing where this ordinance was approved on second (and final) reading. It was approved 5 – 0. It will be important to review the final ordinance, signed into law by the mayor and clerk as well as the meeting minutes. You can be sure that all these documents will be reviewed by the public with a very detailed fine tooth comb.

For now, I see a ban, no chance for a conditional use, and a need to totally revise this inartfully prepared ordinance. I see that Vicky’s Bakery in fact does NOT have a Ventanita in direct contradiction of the statements made to the Miami Herald Reporters.

Everyone is watching this current mayor and council. We will separate fact from fictional spin. This is government and must be held to the standard required in the Village Charter. See September 23, 2020, Palmetto Bay Charter - Citizens' Bill of Rights - requires Truth in Government by our elected officials and employees.

Stay tuned.

Village codes protecting plants - first of a series: Tree Mitigation - A developer friendly law enacted in 2012 under the Stanczyk administration.

Palmetto Bay residents want lush landscaping – creating a sense of place consistent with the term I coined, “The Village of Parks.” Palmetto Bay enacted some very good codes under my first two terms to enable this vision. Some codes (to be discussed in other future posts) included creating a Village Advisory Tree Board (created in 2009). As I said, there are some good codes. The issue is not always the code. We have plenty of laws. It is my opinion that the problems often lie in the failure of the Village to monitor and enforce (one example - the village code banning plastic straws in the Village).

I participated in a unique step in 2018 when I participated in the creation of a new section of the Village Code: Sec. 15-1. - Protection standards for Dade County Pine (pinus elliottii). Now, to be fair, this new code section does have a mitigation plan, but this is not one of convenience for the developer; to the contrary, it is a good type, one for actually INCREASING the number of native pines:

(b) Mitigation.

(1)       If preservation in place or through relocation on the same property is not possible, on-site mitigation shall be required with a mitigation ratio of 1:2, i.e., for every one Dade County Pine individual taken or destroyed, two mitigation individuals must be newly planted on the same property.

(2)       If such mitigation on the same property is not possible, off-site mitigation within the Village shall be required with a mitigation ratio of 1:3, i.e., for every one Dade County Pine individual taken or destroyed, three mitigation individual must be planted off site in the Village, on property paid for by the owner seeking off-site mitigation.

(3)       Dade County Pine individuals planted in mitigation shall be two-inch DBH (diameter at breast height) minimum, ten feet in height planted a minimum of ten feet on center.

In the Pine code above, mitigation equals more pines!

Some politicians don’t get it and laws were actually enacted during periods I was not a member of the Village Council (2010-2014 as well as subsequent to December 5, 2018).

I believe that one of the best (or worst, actually) pro development example is found in Sec. 30-100.2. of the village code of ordinances, commonly referred to as the Landscaping Mitigation Program.  This code section was enacted in 2012 (under Mayor Stanczyk). Here is a link to this code section online (Municode) CLICK HERE.

(a)  Intent. This section seeks to maintain the prevailing purpose and intent of subsection 30-100.1(b) by providing an alternative method for developments to come into compliance with the village's landscaping code found at Division 30-100. This section establishes a program which will permit required landscaping to be installed off the project site, in a public location within the village, when other zoning requirements limit the area available to accommodate such plantings. The remedy offered by this section shall not apply to the amount or type of landscaping required by Article 18A of the Miami-Dade County Code. (Bold emphasis added)

No room for trees on a development site? Do those bothersome trees offend or take up too much room for your planned development? Then no problem, the mayor and village council in office in 2012 have a proposed solution: plant them in public areas. Sounds like fun. Planned impact? Not more trees, instead, more room for cement and density on a development site.

Other objections - it is my opinion that the property owner should remain responsible for maintaining the required tree canopy / landscaping plan; that it be maintained on their own property. This 2012 tree mitigation ordinance appears to allow the property owner to divest him or herself of continuing responsibility once the trees are installed in this 'public location within the village.' This shifts the responsibility to the residents.

The Stanczyk tree mitigation ordinance seems to take issue with what it terms [sub part (b)] 'the fact' that Miami-Dade County’s home rule power and the minimum requirements established in Article 18 of the Miami-Dade County Code precluded the 2012 counsel from offering a mitigation remedy from those provisions. The 2012 council recognized that the original Palmetto Bay tree and landscaping requirements (created under my first terms of office) are more stringent than that required by Article 18A of Miami-Dade County. Therefore, the Stanczyk council wanted to offer a mitigation remedy through implementation of this landscaping mitigation program. And why require a public hearing which may alert people to a reduction of the code, the 2012 ordinance, as I kid you not, what is explicated stated that “This mitigation would obviate the necessity of seeking a variance under the provisions of Division 30-30, relating to the village's landscaping requirements as delineated in Division 30-100.” This, in my opinion, removes notice to the public and any participation by the public. 

This 2012 mitigation ordinance remains on the books, but it was not employed for any zoning applications during my administration, 2014-2018. The “Landscaping Mitigation Program” did not exist until it was enacted in April of 2012.

 

Facts are facts. Get the facts.