The current mayor and councils (between 2019 to date) could have reduced development at the PBVC - instead their ineptness created 570 units- Residential, a hotel and mega commercial.

The time has long past to stop the lies through proxies Mayor Cunningham - stop casting stones at me and prior counsel members for our affirmative actions in regarding the Palmetto Bay Village Center (PBVC). We took action. You crested a mess you could not recover from when your inept mishandling of the PBVC resulted in a viable $15 Million Bert J Harris claim. The residents will be taking it on the chin from your actions, not mine.

This includes former Mayor Stanczyk - after all she participated in and voted for the 2008 VMU district. A fact she never seems to step up and discuss. But in my opinion, more sinister was Mayor Stanczyk's championing the proposal to build an additional 40 units and a fire station in the environmentally sensitive 22 acres back in 2014.  

The facts? So when you really look at it - "my" ordinances resulted in a mere 10 unit increase at the PBVC as Mayor Stanczyk already vested 40 units and a fire station in 22 acres of sensitive land - so sensitive that it was placed on the EEL B list - and neither Stanczyk or Cunningham had anything to do with that attempt to preserve.  To the contrary, May Stanczyk wanted to develop a large portion of those 22 acres.  See Opinion, Community Newspapers, October 13, 2014, Mayor Stanczyk: Using the promise of a fire station as bait to develop protected native areas.

The PBVC blew up in 2022 - more than 4 years after I left office.  It is Cunningham's inept handling of the Palmetto Bay Village Center that has led to a MEGA project no one wanted; that we could not have even feared in our worst dreams. Her failure to address these issues, to follow staff recommendations to approve or even to simply following the law in 2022 has actually put Palmetto Bay at risk of not 400, not 420, 450 or even 480 units, but at risk of 2,385 residential units.

None of this was ever talked about in the open - at no time from 2019 to date were residents engaged to work with the developer through an updated Charrette process or town hall meetings.

The facts were spelled out in a 3 page letter of June 20, 2025. from attorneys for the PBVC - I suggest that the residents review this letter as in my opinion it seriously contradicts the propaganda that has been disseminated under your watch.

Again, the Stanczyk record is an attempt to actually develop in the 22 acres, creating rights of 40 units and a fire station. The Cunningham record is one of passive avoidance - simply taking a populist no-vote when staff has recommended otherwise which set this Village up for the multiple failures before the Courts. My advice to the current Mayor, Council Members back in December 2023: ‘when in a hole (and mayor, you dug a very hole) STOP DIGGING!’ See the Law of Holes.

But the village proxies continue to ignore the facts, try to rewrite history and pretend they actually cared when in fact you just had to keep being a populist, blaming others and milking that political football.  You had to keep digging.

RESULTS - The PBVC could have been limited to anywhere from 389 to 420, 450 if the 2022 zoning hearings and decision been handled with even slight skill - and a commitment to following the law. That its - application closed.  Now Palmetto Bay residents face an initial 450, then a max of 480 without any further council input (interference?), significant commercial including a 125 unit hotel (bringing the actual total number of "units" to between 575-605).  

My opinion: Cunningham violated the law of Holes - All of Palmetto Bay will pay the price. PBVC has all the cards. To be known in Palmetto Bay history as the Cunningham 575-605 unit plan.

Mayor Cunningham - stop casting stones at me and prior counsel members for our affirmative actions in regarding the Palmetto Bay Village Center (PBVC). We took action.

This includes former Mayor Stanczyk as she participated in and voted for the 2008 VMU district as well as championing the proposal to build an additional 40 units and a fire station in the environmentally sensitive 22 acres back in 2014. 

It is your inept handling of the Palmetto Bay Village Center that has led to a MEGA project no one wanted; that we could not have even feared in our worst dreams. Your failure to address these issues, which includes simply following the law in 2022 has actually put Palmetto Bay at risk of 2,385 residential units.

None of this was ever talked about in the open - at no time did you engage residents to work with the developer through an updated Charrette process or town hall meetings.

You do no not even want to take responsibility for preserving the 22 acres - instead you are willing to allow the developer to sell off this land to the County Environmentally Endangered Land Program (EEL) - which at least we were able to get the 22 acres listed on the B list for purchase by the County while I was mayor (which you had nothing to do with - long before you ever showed any interest in Palmetto Bay).

The facts as to how deep the hole reached are spelled out in a 3 page letter of June 20, 2025. from attorneys for the PBVC - I suggest that the residents review this letter as in my opinion it seriously contradicts the propaganda that has been disseminated under your watch.

Again, your record is one of passive avoidance - simply taking a populist no-vote when staff has recommended otherwise and you have set this Village up for the multiple failures before the Courts. My advice to the current Mayor, Council Members back in December 2023: ‘when in a hole (and mayor, you are deep in this hole) STOP DIGGING!’ See the Law of Holes.

From Wikipedia:

When it is said, "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging," it is because digging a hole makes it deeper and therefore harder to get out of. More generally, the adage advises how one should solve problems of their own making.

The second law of holes is commonly known as: "when you stop digging, you are still in a hole."

But you just had to keep being a populist, blaming others and milking that political football.  You had to keep digging.

RESULTS - The PBVC could have been limited to anywhere from 389 to 420, 450 if the 2022 zoning hearings and decision been handled with even slight skill - and a commitment to following the law. That its - application closed.  Now Palmetto Bay is facing an initial 450, then a max of 480 without any further council input (interference?), significant commercial including a 125 unit hotel (bringing the actual total number of "units" to between 575-605).

I'd say "great job" but the sarcasm would be lost. At least - and this is a slight 'win' - the PBVC has stepped up to protect the 22 acres where the Village refused.  They, not the village will partner with the County EEL program and receive millions for it - money that the village taxpayers would have been entitled to see go to the village had Palmetto Bay stepped forward. 

Opinion: Are we really getting to the end result of the development of the Palmetto Bay Village Center? Performative politics and the violation of Bert J Harris results in the MEGA PBVC.

The FACTS regarding the Palmetto Bay Village Center.

How did Palmetto Bay get to the point where it is offering up so much new density on the 80 acre property? Well, in the past, Palmetto Bay residents and officials worked hard to find a palatable solution (see prior posts relating to the Burger King World Headquarters Charrette and the over 42 meetings).  But while some labored in good faith, other political opportunists saw the potential of his property as a political football -- and assumed that voters were too stupid to realize that the property owner had some rights and would be able to build something.  Unfortunately, they threw rocks, promised to "stop the development" but never - ever - came up with a plan to stop it.  Instead, their lack of vision. lack of leadership and most of all - their lack of knowledge as to when to stop digging resulted in this current MEGA plan never contemplated under the 2008, 2016, or any other plan considered previously.  The Palmetto Bay Village Center (PBVC) matter came off the rails on January 24, 2022 when the mayor at the time (the present mayor) and the council adopted Village Resolution No. 2022-05.  This was the resolution from which the courts determined that the Village (current Mayor) VIOLATED the property rights of the owners of the PBVC. And please, when reading, note the specifics as to what the owners of the PBVC sought in that application - 480 units (and I have documented how it should have been many fewer) , no hotel, no additional commercial over what is presently proposed for approval (code named the MEGA enchilada)!

Current council rock throwing over working to present their own plan!

The current plan is a settlement - not a zoning hearing - a settlement of a significant Bert J Harris claim that APPROVES much more development over the rights of the residents not because any prior officials took any action, but because the current mayor dug the holes that we, the residents, find ourselves in because she never took any appropriate action to work with the owners to formulate anything palatable - more on that later - but the village is about to see the unfortunate results when officials are elected who could only throw rocks at the efforts and plans of those who stood up to the issue. The current group never never attempt anything meaningful.  Of course, we now see that the current mayor can throw rocks at the ground - and still miss!

More on Bert J Harris - See my prior related post of January 17, 2020 - A medium length primer on Bert J. Harris Act claims. What we can expect (including a timeline). Link to Bert J Harris Act provided. 

What Could Have Been

The PBVC issue predates the incorporation of Palmetto Bay.  I was in negotiation prior to December 5, 2018.  At that time, the owners of Palmetto Bay Village Center had agreed to preserve the environmentally sensitive land at the front of the property and construct a number that would have been not "the 485,"but rather, a representative for the PBVC offered a compromise number of 450 - 470. I contend that this was their starting point in these negotiations and the unit numbers would have dropped lower (Again, it is important to note that the Bert J Harris Claim arose out of the property rights violations created by the mayor and council in place for Resolution No. 2022-05).  The representative for the PBVC also mentioned in 2018 that negotiations had been ongoing for 200 -- half of the units -- to be Senior housing units. That's a HUGE offer in regard to traffic reduction.

More prior relevant reads: Tuesday, October 16, 2018, About last night (Mon. 10/15/2018) - I continue to work for you to reduce development. The council votes best tell the story.

What Now?

Now, after years of expensive litigation, rock throwing and scapegoating, the Palmetto Bay Village Council appears ready to cave and give the owners of the Palmetto Bay Village Center the APPROVAL to construct a much larger MEGA project -- with commercial never anticipated, in addition to the absolute maximum number of residential units. The Village's refusal to negotiate (because, presumably, they wanted to be seen as taking a tough stance against development) has led to massive increases in development - not prior action.

Yes, it is clear that none of those rocks thrown at the ground (or the PBVC) ever hit the mark. Just cheap political grandstanding covering up a lack of understanding of the issues that will profoundly impact our community.

Just please Palmetto Bay officials - take some positive action - and admit your foibles - and what ever you do, avoid going to court!

Development by unsupportable political denials rarely works for election officials -and area residents suffer. As noted in prior opinion posts, Things have not gone well for the Village of Palmetto Bay before the Miami-Dade trial and Appellate Division of the 11th Circuit Court - and the Third District Court of Appeal.  They promised "no development" but their litigation stumbles more aptly reflects "hold my beer" on granting massive development rights.

Read up on the Appellate Division ruling against Palmetto Bay in a strongly worded 31 page opinion that reversed the denial of the PBVC zoning decision.

Palmetto Bay officials sought a rehearing of the opinion, but fared no better in a revised, but just as lengthy 31 page opinion released July 5, 2023.

See: my prior related opinion post of December 13, 2023 - Court slaps down Palmetto Bay's zoning appeal -- more units for Old Cutler Road DENIED.  The Third District Court of Appeals ruled against the Village of Palmetto Bay.  Having lost - badly - in the efforts on appeal (review via Petitions for Cert for those who want to be sticklers for technicalities) - the Village had no bargaining power left. Read the order cited in that post - "hold my beer" id far too kind. 

This development did not materialize overnight - it took a massive amount of misdirected passive aggressive inaction from January 2019 to date to reach this point. 

Simply stated - don't blame the VUM or any amending ordinances. Blame the council for violating Bert J Harris - and that is a very tough thing to do!. They dug this deep hole and this MEGA development is the result stems from performative politics and lack of vision. The plan is a settlement of transgressions of those who let the village down when Resolution No. 2022-05 was enacted.

Original Burger King World Headquarters - Palmetto Bay Village Center Charrette Advisory Committee Report (September 2004)

Facts are facts - please take a few minutes to review the Palmetto Bay Village Center Charrette Advisory Committee Report - presented to the public in September 2004.

The Charrette Advisory Committee was created one year earlier - September 2003.  This was a very well-paced study. A significant number of public meetings/workshops went into this report. 

The committee members were: 

Brian Pariser
Frank Rollason
Laura Trager
Jilla Montenegro

Please take the time to review this report.

Note that many of the recommendations were NOT included in what came to be known as the Village Mixed Used zoning code (or VMU).  The final code was less dense from some of recommendations contained in the Charrette Report.  Additional public workshops and hearings were held on the VMU code separate to the Charrette.

More facts - documented facts - speaking loudly regarding the Palmetto Bay Village Center. The real hoax is being perpetuated by keyboard warriors who incite fear through misinformation. Back to my opinion on how did this council get to a recommendation in favor of the 480. Did you know? There once was a procedure to ‘undo’ the 480, but the present mayor dropped that effort, allowing staff to recommend 480.

Facts are facts. Just to be clear, as I no longer hold office, I can only offer my opinions as to the ongoing issues relating to the Palmetto Bay Village Center (PBVC). I have always fought to preserve those 22 acres, not see them developed. Twice I asked the council to join me in participating in the purchase through the County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program (EELs).  Property owners have rights, despite what the local fire starters want to mislead you to believe. (actually, one of those fire starters championed an effort to actually develop in the 22 acres/visual barrier, but that's for a different post).

THE SHORT BITE: Current mayor Karyn Cunningham had the tools, the vote and the clear opportunity to repeal the 2016 ordinance relating to the PBVC. 

Former interim Village Attorney John Herin, Esq. was hired at village expense to advise the council on how to repeal this 2016 ordinance. The repeal ordinance was prepared and passed 3-2 on first reading which was held way back on April 3, 2017. This was a special council meeting that was called (requested by the vice mayor) for Independence Day weekend, 2017, (yes, a Saturday, July 1, 2017) – Soon after - and inexplicably, the second reading was deferred by a 5-0 vote. (CLICK HERE to view relevant documents placed in the "2017 VMU Repeal of 2016 ordinance materials" folder).

THE OBVIOUS FACT: Mayor Cunningham had the votes to “undo” the 2016 ordinance, beginning on December 5, 2018. That is if this is really what she desired.  Actions (or inactions) so often speak louder than words. She never did so. It is so much easier for her to point fingers than to actually take action.

FAIR QUESTION: Why? Why was the proposed ordinance never brought forward for enactment? 

In a complete 180, and without any explanation, the Staff operating under Mayor Cunningham recommended approval of 480 units during the zoning proceedings held in mid 2020 (this is the proceeding that lead to the litigation chaos and present offer to settle for the MEGA PBVC.

It did not have to come to this - had the repeal ordinance been properly and fully pursued. 

Promises not kept?

THE IRONY:    The 2016 ordinance is really not used in the proposed settlement agreement - the traffic controls, reduction in commercial use among the lost provisions. The 2016 ordinance is "blamed" but project currently being recommended would not exist under the 2016 ordinance. 

Letting the facts speak for themselves - documenting who voted for the creation of the VMU in 2008 (This may surprise you, but it shouldn't)

Facts are facts. Just to be clear, former Mayor Shelley Stanczyk was one of the 5 members of the village council who worked together to enact the VMU. Then Council Member Shelley Stanczyk represented district 3; the district where the Palmetto Bay Village Center is located.  She had every opportunity to influence the pending legislation that involved over 42 meetings, including a charrette led by village residents. 

Shelly Stanczyk's actions: Did she object? No. She voted for the VMU! Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.  CLICK HERE to view the VMU ordinance as approved in 2008.  

Facts are facts.  What that saying about people who live in glass houses?

PS – Stanczyk had 4 years as mayor to rescind the VMU, but she never seemed to be interested.

Final vote on VMU - Ordinance No. 08-09

\

Page 9 of 9, line 44 - recorded vote of Council Member (at time of vote) Stanczyk

Interesting - MUST - read - transcripts received relating to 2 attorney client meetings - the insider discussion of the Palmetto Bay Village Center litigation.

Why is it that information is not easily accessible in Palmetto Bay?

Palmetto Bay once had a litigation page where concerned residents were informed as to status of ongoing litigation, The transcripts were due to be released as the litigation had ended.  The case: 17777 OLD CUTLER ROAD, LLC VS VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, FLORIDA ET AL, Case number: 2022-000012-AP-01, was final, litigation was at an end, upon the denial of the pending motions for rehearing by the Third District Court of Appeal on March 15, 2024.  The Mandate was issued April 4, 2024.  see my prior related blog post of December 13, 2023, Court slaps down Palmetto Bay's zoning appeal. The Opinion denying the Petition (appeal) was released December 13, 2023 (but was not final until the motions for rehearing were resolved).

I have posted two transcripts relating to the litigation involving the Palmetto Bay Village Center.  I have transcripts for April 3, 2023, and December 18, 2023.  Please click on the links to download and read for yourself.

What Could Have Been

We could have dropped the number to as low as 389 - but that takes negotiation, and the record reflects that Mayor Cunningham and her group won't negotiate.  They have delayed this issue for many years - refusing to make decisions and instead pushing this off to the courts, which conveniently provides the current mayor and the current council with  more people to blame.  Listen to them - read the transcripts - they blame everyone but themselves.  They could have successfully defended a well managed hearing with a proper denial - but look to the July 5, 2023 opinion - it details how not to manage any zoning issue, especially one so critical to our village!

The courts will not craft a compromise deal.  Its win loss - and Mayor Cunningham, and the Village lost - big! Litigation is not cheap. There is a very good reason why so many refer to litigation as the sport of kings. But hey, this is not their money.  It is ours.  

The PBVC issue predates the incorporation of Palmetto Bay.  I was in negotiation prior to December 5, 2018.  At that time, the owners of Palmetto Bay Village Center had agreed to preserve the environmentally sensitive land at the front of the property and construct a number that would have been not "the 485,"but rather, a representative for the PBVC offered a compromise number of 450 - 470. I contend that this was their starting point in these negotiations and the unit numbers would have dropped lower.  An ordinance proposed and passed by then Council Member David Singer reduced the number to below 400 units. The representative for the PBVC also mentioned in 2018 that negotiations had been ongoing for 200 -- half of the units -- to be Senior housing units. That's a HUGE offer in regard to traffic reduction.

See: Tuesday, October 16, 2018, About last night (Mon. 10/15/2018) - I continue to work for you to reduce development. The council votes best tell the story.

What Is Now?

Now, after years of expensive litigation, the Palmetto Bay Village Center has won the right to construct a much larger project -- with commercial units in addition to a larger number of residential units. The Village's refusal to negotiate (because, presumably, they wanted to be seen as taking a tough stance against development) has led to massive increases in development. 

What was being contested (a lengthy tortured history):

Palmetto Bay held three different hearings to get to an inartfully crafted resolution denying the zoning application of the Palmetto Bay Village Center. These hearings were held October 18, 2021, November 15, 2021 and January 24, 2022.  The Village spent months preparing the final order (it was not rushed).  The order denying the zoning application was not signed until March 2, 2022.

The applicants (the owners of the Palmetto Bay Village Center - referred to in the litigation as 17777 Old Cutler Road, LLC.  Filed two actions on April 1, 2022 to contest the denial. :

17777 OLD CUTLER ROAD, LLC, VS VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY
Case number: 2022-006141-CA-01
and
17777 OLD CUTLER ROAD, LLC VS VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, FLORIDA ET AL
Case number: 2022-000012-AP-01  (the case discussed in this post)

Things did not go well for the Village of Palmetto Bay before the Appellate Division of the 11th Circuit Court.  The Appellate Division ruled against Palmetto Bay in a strongly worded 31 page opinion that reversed the denial of the PBVC zoning decision.  Palmetto Bay officials sought a rehearing of the opinion, but fared no better in a revised, but just as lengthy 31 page opinion released July 5, 2023.

Feel free to download and review these two opinions.  The opinions in these appeals should be required reading to learn how to follow the law versus denial for the sake of political gain.

Update on the Palmetto Bay Village Center litigation – Petitioner’s request for Oral Argument Granted – to be set

I am working to truly keep interested readers in the loop.  The Petitioner/Appellant, 1777 Old Cutler Road, LLC (aka the Palmetto Bay Village Center) filed a request for Oral Argument in the case styled as 17777 OLD CUTLER ROAD, LLC VS VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, FLORIDA ET AL, case number: 2022-000012-AP-01 . The court granted this request by order filed July 18, 2022. 

Oral argument is not required to dispose of a case. The Court reviewed the request and the briefs filed in determining whether Oral Argument would be granted.  CLICK HERE to view a prior post where I inserted links to view all the legal briefs filed in this proceeding.

The court could have denied the request and followed up with an order affirming the action of the Palmetto Bay Mayor and Village Council, denying the petition/appeal.  Obviously the court did not take this action, but instead granted the request for oral argument.  The scheduling of Oral Argument does not foreshadow any future decision. The Oral Argument is not currently set, but will be in the near future.

Background, See Prior related post of July 1, 2022: Palmetto Bay Village Center Litigation Update – Petition for Cert (a form of appellate review). All the briefs have been filed. You can download and read them here.

Stay tuned and I will continue to keep you in the loop.

Palmetto Bay officials play the blame game through proxy. The blame lies with the current mayor, as it was her failure to follow through on the 2016 ordinance repeal. An ever expanding broken record of litigation funded by the taxpayers, who should remember in November!

The facts are simple (and unavoidable). Current mayor Cunningham had the opportunity to repeal the 2016 ordinance relating to the PBVC. Village Attorney John Herin, Esq. previously served as interim Village Attorney under Mayor Stanczyk’s administration. He was hired in 2017 to advise the council on how to repeal the 2016 ordinance that mayors Stanczyk and Cunningham complain so much about. This post is about what they could (and should have done) rather than complain. 

The repeal ordinance passed 3-2 on first reading which was held way back on April 3, 2017.  This was a special council meeting that was called (requested by those who voted in favor) for Independence Day weekend, 2017, (yes, a Saturday, July 1, 2017) – Soon after - and inexplicably, the second reading was deferred by a 5-0 vote. And so it withered and died a death from neglect. Why no follow up?

Bottom line - mayor Cunningham accepted ownership of the 2016 ordinance due to her failure to repeal it. 

Well? We are still waiting for an answer to the question as to why it was never completed. Karyn Cunningham had the votes in 2017 as a member of the village council as well as in 2019, or at any time after becoming mayor. But she sat on it, neglected it, all after spending taxpayer money on a legal opinion and preparation of legislation not enacted, but instead, neglected it to the point where Palmetto Bay taxpayers once again find themselves in court to defend errors and mistakes of this current mayor and council.  

What did Cunningham think would happen if this ordinance was not repealed; that the Palmetto Bay Village Center issue would simply go away?

A broken record of litigation.

Facts are facts. It is current Mayor Cunningham’s failure to follow through has led to the PBVC seeking the present zoning on the 2016 & 2018 ordinances. It did not have to come to this had the repeal ordinance been properly and fully pursued. 

So why the finger pointing, especially through proxy emails full of misstatements? For nearly four years the current mayor and her supporters have been pushing the rearview mirror and used finger pointing tactics to avoid the facts that they have continually failed to act. Perhaps because we once again have a mayor who has no positive record of her own to stand on. Truth hurts.

Promises not kept by current elected officials? Obviously plenty of promises made. Few kept.

These facts have been pointed out before, but the Cunningham proxies continue to ignore the facts and continue to push out inaccurate information. See: September 1, 2020, Opinion - How did this council get to a recommendation in favor of the 480? There once was a procedure to ‘undo’ the 480, but the present mayor and vice mayor appear to have dropped that effort, allowing staff to recommend 480.

OFFICAL DOCUMENTS CONFIRMING THE FACTS:

CLICK HERE to view the ordinance folder relating to the repeal of the 2016 Ordinance.

CLICK HERE to read the 14 page treatise stating that the 2016 ordinance can be undone and providing the road map on how to do it.

Future post: The Mayor and Council should properly apply the 2016 ordinance for the benefit of the community. There is a significant difference between "administrative site plan review" and an "administrative variance". I will explain the difference to them in a future post. 

More litigation for the Village – The Palmetto Bay Village Center has filed for judicial review – a big read. Initial review and impression – links to critical documents provided

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed at noon (12:03 PM, to be exact) on April 1, 2022, and no, this is no April Fool’s Day joke. It is very real. 

The owners of the Palmetto Bay Village Center (known as “17777 Old Cutler Road, LLC” in the zoning application and current litigation) filed the following:

• Petition for Writ of Certiorari (63 pages)
• The Clerk of the Court acknowledged receipt of this Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 12:58 PM (1 page)
• A 1,574 page Appendix to Petition for Writ of Certiorari was also filed (where you will find the background documents and transcripts).
• Part II of the Appendix to Petition for Writ of Certiorari, 220 pages.

This is going to be a very busy weekend of legal reading. I have set up a google drive folder where you can access all documents filed to date (CLICK HERE to access the entire folder - all documents to date)

There is too much here to make initial off the cuff analysis. The Petition for Writ of Certiorari has been filed to contest the action of the Mayor and Village Council’s final resolution of March 3, 2002, denying 17777 Old Cutler Road, LLC’s (‘‘Applicant’’) Request for Site Plan Approval.

Important documents include item B of the appendix, which is the Village Staff report of October 18, 2021.

This appendix also contains transcripts for the Zoning Hearings Held October 18, 2021, November 15, 2021 and January 24, 2022.

Recommended reading – See prior positions of Staff under this current Mayor and Council – which included what I termed a “full unqualified recommendation” to approve 480 units on Old Cutler Road. As I said then it was shocking and in stark contrast to how the current officials played the "485" in the 2016 and 2018 elections. See June 2, 2020: 480 Units at the Palmetto Bay Village Center - Village tax dollars were used to create a record that supports the applicant for this zoning hearing. Is this what you voted for?

Get the facts, not the spin. The documentation is there for all of us to read.

An important environmental post worth repeating: What’s So Special about a 22 Acre Forest on Old Cutler Road, by Eduardo Varona, Guest Post (originally published October 18, 2018)

Is the environmental spirit dead with current elected officials? Why are they willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in the future to "beautify" the median running within US1 (costs that they gladly assumed from FDOT), but not protect environmentally sensitive land? 

Various plans have been proposed. I proposed working with the Miami-Dade Environmentally Endangered Lands Program (EEL) several times. In fact, I worked to get these 22 acres placed on the "B" List for acquisition, but it requires that Palmetto Bay participate.  That would remove any threat of development both on that land or any transferrable rights being applied to adjoining land.  This land has been used as a political football for far too long and I am anxious to see a realistic plan to save this precious land. 

I rely upon experts. The 22 acres of the Palmetto Bay Village Center should be saved. Please see this guest post from 10/18/2018: What’s so special about a 22 acre forest on Old Cutler Rd? 

This forest is very special indeed. It is one of the last remaining remnants of the tropical rockland forest ecosystem that covered Miami-Dade County before we bulldozed 98% of it. Yes there is roughly only 2% left of this forest ecosystem left in all of South Florida. Most of this ecosystem existed almost exclusively in South Miami-Dade. And day by day we lose additional acreage to development and neglect.

Specifically, the 22 acres of the PBVC is a tropical rockland forest composed of rockland hammock and pine rockland. These two forest communities exist on the oolitic limestone ground in a fluid equilibrium with each other as the land can transition back and forth between the two distinct plant communities in a natural and controlled process influenced by fire, hydrology, and by man. The species diversity both plant and animal that this 22 acre forest harbors cannot be measured in dollars. It should not ever be measured in dollars. In fact some years ago, the 22 acres was nominated for inclusion into the County's Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) acquisition program. County biologists assessed the site in response and documented the important habitat values. As a result, the Board of County Commissioners added this site to the list of lands that EEL should purchase for management and protection. The land has remained on the list ever since awaiting funding for purchase.

Here is the complete guest post, originally published on October 18, 2018:

Thursday, October 18, 2018

What’s So Special about a 22 Acre Forest on Old Cutler Road, by Eduardo Varona, Guest Post

Many have questioned over the last decade what is the importance of 22 acres of privately owned native forest on the east side of Old Cutler Rd just north of SW 184 St in Palmetto Bay. Some have claimed and said it is a protected forest. The private owner at times has wanted to develop it and at times seems to want to protect it. Politicians have even fallen on their own swords actually proposing to develop it. At times part of the forest was even looked at for a fire station to serve the surrounding neighborhoods. 

In the last four years there has been a serious push to finally give steadfast lasting protections to this forest through a deal between the Village of Palmetto Bay and the private owner, the Palmetto Bay Village Center (PBVC). This agreement would involve a transfer of developmental rights from the 22 acres east to the parcels surrounding the PBVC. And Palmetto Bay would receive the 22 acre forest as the newest passive park in the “Village of Parks”.

So this begs the question, do the 22 acres of forest need protection? Is this privately owned forest currently protected from development now and in the future?

The answer to the second question is a very certain NO. The 22 acres have never been designated a Natural Forest Community (NFC) by the County and therefore are not protected whatsoever under County laws. To have been designated an NFC the private owner could have approached the county and asked for an ecological and biological assessment of the site. This has never happened. Had it happened, due to the relatively well maintained condition of the forest it would most likely have been designated an NFC. However, even if it had been designated an NFC it would only have protected a percentage of it from development, not all of it. 

What about a covenant that allegedly exists or existed that allegedly protects the forest. Well, depending on who you ask and on which side of the bed they woke, there is a covenant of sorts that is enforced by the Village. A covenant that the Village agrees is soon scheduled to expire.

But in actuality that covenant doesn’t protect the forest at all. It only protects the homes across from the forest along Old Cutler Rd by maintaining a “visual buffer” so that those homes can’t see the PBVC building. That is the extent of the covenant which is due to expire in 2019, if you ask the experts. Finally, is there interest by the private owner to develop the forest? Well why wouldn’t there be as it is prime real estate right on old Cutler Rd. If not protected, someday it will be developed.

Now let’s go back to the original question, the title of this writing. What’s so special about a 22 acre forest on Old Cutler Rd? This forest is very special indeed.  It is one of the last remaining remnants of the tropical rockland forest ecosystem that covered Miami-Dade County before we bulldozed 98% of it. Yes there is roughly only 2% left of this forest ecosystem left in all of South Florida. Most of this ecosystem existed almost exclusively in South Miami-Dade. And day by day we lose additional acreage to development and neglect. 

Specifically, the 22 acres of the PBVC is a tropical rockland forest composed of rockland hammock and pine rockland. These two forest communities exist on the oolitic limestone ground in a fluid equilibrium with each other as the land can transition back and forth between the two distinct plant communities in a natural and controlled process influenced by fire, hydrology, and by man. The species diversity both plant and animal that this 22 acre forest harbors cannot be measured in dollars. It should not ever be measured in dollars. In fact some years ago, the 22 acres was nominated for inclusion into the County's Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) acquisition program.  County biologists assessed the site in response and documented the important habitat values.  As a result, the Board of County Commissioners added this site to the list of lands that EEL should purchase for management and protection.  The land has remained on the list ever since awaiting funding for purchase.

Roughly half of the 22 acre forest is pine rockland with the rest consisting of an oak hammock also containing trees such as mastic and gumbo limbo. Yet it is a little known fact that pine rockland is a worldwide endangered ecosystem and plant community which only occurs in Cuba, Bahamas, and yes, Miami-Dade County, and only in South Dade. 

There is more that makes this 22 acre forest more unique than other similar parcels in South Dade. This forest is one of the last remnants of a vast coastal forest that existed in a long ecotone where the forest met the South Dade coastal wetlands and then beyond that Biscayne Bay. And there is even more that makes it so special. 

Few understand that all throughout the Miami coastal ridge where now lie the municipalities of Palmetto Bay, Cutler Bay, and Pinecrest there existed transverse glades, also known as finger glades. These transverse glades, traversed the coastal ridge as creeks and fresh water wetlands that in the wet season flowed with fresh water from the Everglades all the way to Biscayne Bay. One very large transverse glade occurred in the area known as Bel Aire in Cutler bay and it ran northeast into Palmetto Bay emptying most of its fresh water into Biscayne Bay at the Deering Estate.  This same transverse glade, now a canal, at one time also fed this 22 acre forest and the coastal wetlands abutting it with a seasonal seepage of subterranean ground water through the porous limestone underfoot. In fact an unusual tree species for this location so close to the coast still lives on the edge of these 22 acres at the spot where it once met the coastal wetlands. The Swamp Bay, a tree in the Avocado family, mainly occurs in the Everglades tree islands and in transverse glades. And that a specimen of this tree still grows on the edge of the 22 acre forest is evidence of the strong Everglades fresh water connection that once existed at the site.

So to come full circle, the 22 acres is significant in of itself as one of the last remnants of a vast tropical rockland coastal forest that once existed but is now mostly gone. However, the last piece of the intricate story is that this 22 acre forest lies right beside the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) restoration project which is an integral component of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). This large scale CERP restoration project is planned to restore many thousands of acres of coastal wetlands and the near-shore adjacent portions of Biscayne Bay.  With the exception of what has already been restored at the Deering Estate, the most northerly component of this large project is the 130 acre restoration parcel purchased by the Water Management District just to the south of the 22 acre forest.  This makes the forest and its protection an effort worthy of local, county, state, national, and international significance.

This precious 22 acre forest if preserved will support and enhance BBCW and the Village of Parks far into the future.

Swamp bay trees that are proof of the connection of this forest to fresh water wetlands.