The Commission is in the process of revising an ordinance concerning driveways and swales that will have a significant impact on the community. For some residents it will be a financial burden and for others a logistical dilemma considering the variety of conditions that exist.
To clarify the terms, swale
refers to the area from the property line to the street and is public
property. Off street parking refers to any parking surface located on
private property which does not include the swale.
Last year there were community
workshops concerning off street parking (driveways), parking surfaces and the
use of the swale area. The Code Review Board (Gary is a member) and
Parks & Parkways Board (Barbara is a member) worked together to agree on
recommendations for the commission to improve the code. The workshops
were well attended by residents who were allowed to comment on issues.
The administration was also present. These were some of the
recommendations forwarded to the commission.
·
Prohibit
parking within the property line of a residence unless it is on an approved
parking surface (grass is not an approved parking surface for private
property).
·
Defined
approved parking surface materials for the swale and off street parking (grass
was an approved parking surface for the swale but it had to be maintained- not dirt).
Nothing was recommended that
would prohibit a resident from creating an impervious parking surface on the
swale but it could take up no more than 40% of the swale. This was
already in our code. The
existing code did not require every property to have a driveway and no
recommendation was made by the committee to require a driveway.
The commission, on their own,
added that every property, including duplexes, must have off street
parking. They have now added that all parking surfaces on the swale will
be deemed non-conforming.
·
Residents
will no longer be permitted to construct parking surfaces (pavement, gravel,
etc.) or change the materials of existing parking surfaces on the swale.
·
Residents
will be required to remove a parking surface on the swale if 50% or more of the
surface needs repair.
·
Residents
that have a parking surface on the swale must obtain a release from the
adjacent property owner.
·
Residents
that do not have a parking surface in the swale can no longer park on the
swale.
Previous proposed revisions to
ordinances (fences, boats and RV's) that had the potential impact that the
driveways and swale restrictions will have on the community were subject to
workshops. What is being proposed is contrary to what came out of the
workshop last year and has had no input from Code Review and Parks &
Parkways or workshops on these changes.
We will be hiring a new Village
Manager in the next month and in November we may have three new
commissioners. Is this the right time and process to make significant
changes to an ordinance that will have substantial financial, aesthetic and
practical implications to the village?
Think of this as a survey:
1.
Do you think
every property must have a driveway?
2.
Do you park
on your swale and do you want to change that?
3.
Do you have
an improved parking surface on your swale and want to change the
material?
4.
Do you think
no one should park on the swale, grass or parking surface material? What
other concerns do you have about this?
Below is the proposed ordinance
that will be discussed at the July 12, Commission Meeting.
We would really like to hear your
opinions.
Thanks,
Barbara & Gary Kuhl
We think it's important for the residents to let the Commission know how they would like to see the village improved.
ReplyDeleteI am wondering why I have already received notification from the Code Compliance Officer...which stated I had 24 hours to rectify parking on the lawn in front of my house..As FPL has constructed 3 poles, might I add without LIGHTS, although I did ask about them) one borders my driveway and makes extension impossible. I find this a burden, not only financially..but kinda horse after the cart mentality.
ReplyDeleteThe existing code does prohibit parking on grass within your property line. I think this was passed last Sept.
DeleteAll,
ReplyDeleteAs this is Barbara and Gary's post, I'm going to let them run with it. As well, they are better versed in this ordinance than I.
Milt
Parking should be permitted on the swale. Paving improvements should be permitted although the method of determining what quantity is permitted should be studied. Possibly change the 40% maximum to a one car length limit not including driveway approaches. Possibly less for properties where required off street parking uses up swale space for driveway approaches.
ReplyDeleteAs for parking spaces on private property, there needs to be a better study of how this retroactive requirement impacts various properties which may already have developed parking on the swale and or minimal space on private property. Tandem parking (head to tail) may need to be the required configuration for some properties with limited space for installation of the required spaces.
These issues could have easily been anticipated if the previous ordinance had been vetted against real conditions. I suggested as such. If new changes are proposed, they as well should be vetted. What valuable and well
executed installations would need to be removed and where would the relocated parking go?
This is worthy of a workshop, or the new manager should thoroughly study this and make recomendstions.
What is the goal with any of these changes?
Just some quick thoughts.
Parking on the swale should be used for guest parking. Everyone's vehicles and toys should be parked on an approved surface on their property. We don't have sidewalks, however we do have more and more families biking and people walking, and the swale is a needed to get out of the way of traffic. You can't do that when a car or truck is using the swale, it's a safety issue. Aesthetically it looks trashy looking down a street lined with cars on both sides. Drive through the unincorporated areas and see how bad it looks for yourself.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it would look better if all cars parked on private property but not everyone has the space to accommodate their cars. A family with two older kids could easily have to deal with 4 cars. On 7th Ave. the front yards are so shallow you couldn't park two cars tandem. To make things look better the committee recommended parking surface materials and enforcing good maintenance.
DeleteAs far as walking - it's safer if you walk facing traffic. This gives you the opportunity to stop before you get to the car parked on the swale if there's a car coming. There are always compromises.
Barbara
Morning Barbara,
DeleteI thought to update you with the overnight stats. So far, your post (you and Gary) has received 136 views. That's good traffic for under a 24 hour period. That points to good content.
I'll add that part of our problem is as you mentioned "enforcing good maintenance." Similar to the conversation recently about moving the bulk pickup day- if we don't enforce trash piles put out early, what does it matter? If we don't do anything about those parking on their property (or swale- not their property) and have destroyed the grass there leaving nothing but a dirt pit behind, why does a new ordinance really matter?
We have these codes on the books NOW and yet, are far too lax in enforcement. Why not start there? I'd love to see the Commission expend some of their energy on simply ensuring compliance of our existing codes.
Milt
DeletePedestrians should always have the right of way, and be a priority. I agree with walking against traffic, however bikers must abide by the laws of road, and they too need to be able to use a swale to avoid a collision (most cars will illegally pass a bike rider on our narrow streets because they want to drive faster). Most cities want to promote a healthy lifestyle of walking, running, and biking, and why would we not want the same. So by allowing 7th ave and other similar streets to park along the swale, we are basically implying that parking your 3rd or 4th car is a bigger priority than the safety of one biking down that street, a mother pushing a stroller, or kids on a skateboard etc etc. How are you going to control the speed and safety on that street 24 hrs a day? I think the potential death of pedestrian outweighs parking your 3rd or 4th car on the swale.
Here's another real life example.... A couple who recently bought a property on 121st, moved to the area for these reasons, low crime and I quote, "being able to jog and bike without feeling like your going to get run over." After identifying a home, we discussed whether or not they had adequate parking for cars, storage for the fishing boat which the husband mentioned he wanted to buy someday, and a garage that they could convert into another bedroom in case they decide to have a child. These are a just few topics of many conversations when your buying any home, and planning to grow within a property. Yes families grow and needs change, and that is COMPLETELY the responsibility of the homeowner. These are personal choices, and possibly those households that have grown beyond their home's capacity, should find a property which will accommodate their wants and needs. It's irresponsible to buy a car without adequate parking, then expect your neighbors and city to accommodate your poor choices.
One point that we're trying to make is that we were allowed to park on the swale and add an improved parking surface there. If I had 4 cars and I had room for two in my driveway and two on the swale that was allowed by our code. This is being changed when the ordinance goes into effect. Do you think it's responsible of the village to change this after I bought my house? Do you really think I should sell my house because the rules changed?
DeleteBarbara
Why would anyone expect the code to never change? There was a time when you respected your neighbor and maintained your yard without codes, because it was the right thing to do. Yes, the world changes and so do codes! Good governing is about seeing a need for change and acting upon it. Unfortunately, some people will not immediately benefit from that change, however your governing the entire village not just a few streets, your representing everyone. I think it's far more important to base a decision on the overall benefit of the community, it's bad governing to penalize the entire village to accommodate a few households. Here's an example.... we have a dilapidated van currently licensed/registered, and has never moved from the swale on 11PL and 117th. This van has vines growing through it, and rust holes in the roof top. This property owner feels he bought the house with the right to park on the city's swale, and deposits a vehicle regardless of condition on that swale, where it has sat and not moved for the 5 years I have lived here. Where's the good governing in protecting an old code that infringes on other's rights of enjoyment to their property, and allowing a bad neighbor to devalue their property. Your good neighbor today may sell their home to the worst neighbor in Biscayne Park history, and you could be the next victim of a bad neighbor and lose your life's investment in your home?
DeleteBrad - I am with you that codes must, and in the 38 years I have lived here, have changed. But what is being proposed here doesn't just change the code, it materially changes the use of the entire parcel the respective homeowner is responsible for and hits them with a very large financial outlay - far greater than any other code changes that have come along - and I am still not grasping how the entire village is penalized if people aren't made to put in a driveway when they already have a developed (and in good condition) swale. The example you gave is an excellent one - and one that won't be solved by that individual being forced to put in a driveway. That van will still be an eyesore and still visible. What's hurting the quality of life for ALL of us is the "housekeeping" (as I call them) issues that need to be enforced.
DeleteI do not have a parking problem. I have a large two car carport. I can't imagine if I had limited space and needed to use the swale at least partially. My biggest question is "who" and for "what purpose" is making these ordinances. I admit I'm not politically savy, but I think we should have some kind of Biscayne Park vote referendum. Biscayne Park is a beautiful village. I don't care much for it to become a cookie cutter village. Let there be some variation. Second, what happens if you a party or a few guests over the weekend or for a week? Do you get an infraction? Also, if the village is so adamant about us not parking on the swale (which is necessary sometimes for workers and visitors) why is it the responsibility of the owner of the property to take financial care of the swale. I thought it was a public right of way? I apologize if I'm asking the obvious. I'm trying to learn in order to make and informed decision. Thanks Elona Wagner
ReplyDeleteHi Elona,
DeleteA couple of points. This has nothing to do with trying to create a "cookie cutter village." Also, this isn't about temporary guest parking on the swale. It's moreover about potentially improving our property values and overall Village aesthetic.
According to Barbara and Gary's post, "defined approved parking surface materials for the swale and off street parking (grass is an approved parking surface for the swale BUT it had to be maintained- not dirt." So- the point is it has to be maintained... not abused so the extent you kill all the grass on the swale where you park. Which is the case with most of the swale parking now.
I hope this helps. And keep asking questions and seeking answers. That is the purpose of the blog.
Milt
Okay, I'll take the survey:
ReplyDelete1. Do you think every property must have a driveway?
2. Do you park on your swale and do you want to change that?
3. Do you have an improved parking surface on your swale and want to change the material?
4. Do you think no one should park on the swale, grass or parking surface material? What other concerns do you have about this?
_________________________________________________________________________________
#1- Yes, insofar as every property needs to have a "designated parking area." This excludes guest parking and if they haven't the room for a traditional driveway. We just can't have cars pulling up to their front doors and leaving cars there.
#2- No
#3- No, but would want the option of improving the parking material in future as need be.
#4- I don't see how we can have a "1 size fits all" approach to this. We have some odd lots that need to be considered. Also, I don't, personally, want to see the creation of a concrete jungle due to parking spaces. Again, personally, I don't like to see swale parking, but in some cases, that's the best and only option.
Could you explain further the landscaping aspect of the new ordinance? It is very unclear in the proposal as to what is allowed in the swale and what isn't. There is language in there that the village can remove your trees or other landscaping from the swale at their discretion and charge the homeowner for the costs. That does not seem like something a "tree city" would support - the removal of healthy canopy cover.
ReplyDeleteBarbara,
DeleteWill you address Grant's question when you can please?
Thanks-
P.S. Welcome Grant!
Grant,
DeleteWhen the workshops were held concerning driveways and parking on the swales, landscaping of the swale was also discussed. The commission decided to delete the new landscaping language and just go ahead with the parking aspect. This proposed ordinance has the old, unaltered language for landscaping. The section you're referring to, I think, is 5.3.4 (f) which refers to emergency situations, "involving potential danger to the health, safety and welfare of the community." In those situations the village can remove a tree and "eliminate the emergency." To remove a tree in the swale that's not dead, you actually have to get a tree removal permit from the county and give the reason.
This is only my interpretation of the code. If you still have concerns, perhaps, bring it to the commission
Barbara
Hi Barbara,
DeleteThank you for the reply. I wish I could attend the commission meeting for this issue, but will be out of town unfortunately. The part I'm most interested in is this:
Landscaping
. Nothing shall be planted or allowed to grow in such a manner so as to
obstruct the right-of-way clear zone at a level between three (3) feet and six (6) feet above the grade, measured at the centerline of right-of-way. Trees or palms, however, having trunks and foliage trimmed in such a
manner that no branches or foliage extend into the right-of-way area clear zone shall be allowed, provided they are so located so as not to create a traffic hazard.
It is just very unclear as to what is allowed and what isn't in the swale and what the purpose is. Is it to allow temporary parking on the swale? My understanding was it was to prevent the swale from being blocked to pedestrian traffic in case they need to move over for a car coming down the street.
Thank you again Barbara for taking the time to address our questions.
Hi Grant,
DeleteI'm sorry, I forgot to respond to this. I think it means that you can plant shrubs, ground cover and grass that doesn't go higher than 3'. If you plant a tree it should have a clear trunk of 6' so there's an area from 3' to 6' that doesn't have obstructions. Tree trunks are allowed as long as it's a clear trunk. As I said, they were working on changes but for right now that seems to be what you have to work with. The best one to check with is the village for clarification.
Barbara
Brad - your next door neighbor is a perfect example of someone who needs to be able to park on the swale. He has had a boat since long before the ordinance regarding boats and rvs changed. He cannot get his boat into his back yard and so has an administrative variance. He has a truck, his wife has a car. And as you know his property is impeccable. Do we now tell Ron he needs to move because we want to make all these massive changes long after he moved in here? We have so many issues of visual blight that are more widespread and trashier looking than cars on a swale - abandoned properties not being taken care of by the banks that have them, houses and existing driveways in various states of disrepair. How about trash/garbage/recycling bins permanently in front of houses? I would like to see us tend to some basic housekeeping issues. If we don't, forcing someone to put in a driveway will achieve nothing.
ReplyDeleteJaney - Once again, this is not about me, you, or our neighbor. It's about the village as a whole.
DeleteBrad: Kids come and go to a family. Disallowing parking on the swale does not alow for the temporary - even if several years, parking to accommodate the growing number of vehicles in a household. It doesn't permit overflow parking for special events. Doesn't provide for delivery services. Your alternative to no parking on the swale when you have 3 driving age kids in the house is to build more parking on private property - don't think so. This is indeed about the entire Village and accommodating within reason the variables that exist as best as possible.
ReplyDeleteYou hit the nail on the head that we do not have uniform properties and therefore uniform rules will penalize some and reward others. It is short-sided and unnecessary. Residents who don't upkeep their property or are otherwise discourteous to their neighbors need to be sanctioned. We should define minimum standards for what residents should and should not be allowed to do vs. explicit requirements for all.
ReplyDeleteThink of this as a survey:
1. Do you think every property must have a driveway? NO
2. Do you park on your swale and do you want to change that? NO and NO
3. Do you have an improved parking surface on your swale and want to change the material? YES and NO
4. Do you think no one should park on the swale, grass or parking surface material? What other concerns do you have about this?
NO PARKING ON THE SWALE OTHER THAN QUICK STOPS AND PARTIES.
Ok H, so when's the party!! ... good to see you, so to speak.
DeleteOne thing, you mention " We should define minimum standards for what residents should and should not be allowed to do vs. explicit requirements for all."
Isn't that the same thing we're doing here now? Defining proper parking spaces and surfaces? The core of this is (at least how it started)that cars parking on their front grass helter skelter need to be relocated to a designated parking "area"- and surface- not dirt.
I looked up and down my street for 2 blocks. I think there were 7 properties that are in violation of not parking in the right "area" and/or on an approved surface. However, one home doesn't have enough room for a 2 car wide driveway... maybe others too- I took a quick look. When I first moved here, my wife and I parked in front and behind each other on an old singlewide concrete driveway. That clearly was a pain (you know where) and soon after I built (correction- had built) a 2 car width driveway. Problem solved!
Dan.... fyi.. check out my prior post stating that I believe the swale should only be used for guest parking (first line). Parking on the swale blocks a right of way, and also slows street drainage, which is currently a problem. If you don't have room for your vehicles on your property, either expand your driveway, or go find a property that works for you. Don't make your neighbors have to deal with it. Let's not forget the neighbor who just uses the swale to park an unused vehicle, letting it rot there for years.
ReplyDeleteHey Brad,
DeleteI'm not sure that any vehicles parking on the swale is causing any extra delay in normal street drainage. The time-elapsed photos taken over the past year prove otherwise.
However, I do know that you live on one of our street that dips and that gravity funnels some extra pooling of water there... for a short time. But one, that's an exception to the rule and two, a situation moreover with the road and not the parking of cars on the swale.
As for the swale being used for a technically abandoned vehicle? Again, different subject, but one that should be addressed.
Brad, Would you like someone to say to you, "Why did you move into Biscayne Park since they allow parking on the swale and you don't like that?" Why can't you even consider a compromise?
DeleteBarbara
Hi Brad,
DeleteI've served on several committees in the Village over the years. I often have strong opinions as do others. In order to achieve an effective and equitable result on issues it often requires compromise. A few years ago an ordinance was being developed requiring boats and RV's to be stored behind the face of the house. Not every owner could comply. In lieu of forcing some owners to sell or store their boat or RV elsewhere if they could not comply, a compromise was reached. Owner's were allowed to store the boat/RV on an approved surface in the front yard until the house was sold. It acknowledged that not every property is the same and exceptions need to be made.
Gary
I was not in favor of allowing residents to store a boat or RV in the front yard. An ordinance was proposed several years ago that required boats/RV's to be stored behind the face of the house. In cases where the boat/RV could not be stored in the side yard they were allowed to keep it on an approved surface in the front yard until the house was sold. They were also given a year to comply. In addition residents were given the opportunity to buy a boat/RV in the next year if they didn't own one at the time. This was a compromise that accommodated residents at that time.
I have a question about drainage. If my swale has been parked on for 79 years and I stop parking on it is all the sudden going to drain better.
DeleteOk, good, as far as it goes. Tell me who is going to constantly determine who is a visitor and who isn't? What a nightmare. When will they be subject to a code violation - will
ReplyDeletewe have tickets for that?
The idea that people should provide for all the parking onsite for any conceivable temporary increase in parking needs isn't going to be feasible in many cases and I see that only 40% is proposed to be acceptable (another impossibility in many cases if you are going to meet minimum parking requirements).
Buying a new larger parking surface home, would certainly work for local realtors, but rarely would it for the property owners. That concept isn't even one that is suggested for the bedrooms in a home let alone for variable parking needs.
By the way, conceivably, I could park on my neighbors swale and they are the ones that would be subject to the code violation unless we plaster the Village with no parking signs. Code violations go with the property they are associated with. The police can only ticket when there is a no parking sign posted.
Parking on the swale is a public use and should be preserved for all uses.
I think there was some progress made last night to provide for those properties without existing driveways or that may not have sufficient space to have a driveway on their property that have an existing swale. Also progress to accommodate those with driveways that may not have sufficient parking for more than one or two cars.
ReplyDeleteOn another note I had a thought about parking permits. In some cities cars can only park in certain public areas with a permit. Perhaps we could implement such a system in BP. One example I can think of is 121st on the west side of 6th Ave. I have heard complaints that some of the residents on the NM side park across the street on the south side. If this system were in place it could eliminate that issue. Same thing for visitors, to park in the swale they need to get a temporary parking permit if it is for an extended time. All of the above is conditioned on the fact there is existing parking in the swale on approved surfaces.
For the record I am not in favor of new development in the swale and if any is necessary that it be pervious.
Just food for thought.
Chuck
Thanks for the update Chuck. Your parking permits idea is interesting...need to give that some thought.
DeleteI think the key issue here is to get cars into a designated "parking area" that makes sense for their property and on an approved surface of some kind. The depressed (or is it depressing?) dirt pit swale is an eyesore.
Chuck and Milt,
DeleteI think we're all on the same page that properties in BP and their swales shouldn't have Dirt Pit swales or yards. Great new term, Milt. Sadly, this condition is a code violation now and has been for many years but the village just never enforced it. Why not? If driveways were maintained in good condition and swales were maintained in good condition, whether grass or improved parking surface, that would make things look a lot better. If cars had to park on an approved parking surface in the yard and on the swale if necessary, that would make things look a lot better and a lot neater. Instead of the commission asking that our codes be enforced the commission has decided to take the route of over regulating the codes we have.
I've lived here 40 years and we've always been able to add an improved parking surface on the swale. You can only do 40%. Most houses haven't done that because most houses don't need it. Why does the commission think that if they don't prohibit that then everyone will go out and do it tomorrow? It's not going to happen. I would be happy to get cars off the front lawns and neaten things up.
Ok Barb... I'll copyright "Dirt Pit" then :p
DeleteBTW- your post is sitting at 327 views! I assume most of the site traffic is done on this topic at this point. Thank you and it was great to have you and Gary as guest bloggers here.
Hi Milt,
DeleteThank you for letting us use your blog. Now we know how much time you must spend monitoring everything. Thanks also for starting the blog and keeping it current. It's been a great place to keep up with village topics.
Barbara,
DeleteYou're most welcome... but with one correction. It's "our blog- not "my blog." Now, repeat after me....
See you-
Yup, we're on the same page.
ReplyDeleteI dont see how it could be fair or feasible to require that all parking must done off of the swale. As we all know, this isnt a planned development and we cannot retrofit it to become one. There are many homes that are not duplexes that rely on swale parking, as I do, not that it matters whether the home is single family or duplex, in my opinion. I would have to basically rip up my entire (small) front yard in order to do this, replacing years of careful landscaping with ugly pavement at an expense of who knows what. I know many other homes would need to do the same. I am all for requiring properties to be maintained and clean, but requiring homeowners to substantially modify their property to conform to random and unreasonable attempts to homogenize the neighborhood after the fact are unfair.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMark - I just read your comment and I couldn't agree more. I would like to suggest you forward that via email to the entire commission. Some may follow this blog, not but not necessarily all of them. Even if they did, it's a good idea to have your comments on the record. I really liked your phrasing about how you can't retrofit us to be more like a planned community. We have homes dating back to the 20's, all shapes and sizes and styles and lot sizes. One size cannot fit all in this case. (Now just as an aside I personally would love to see us as clean and neat with well maintained yards as a planned community - but that's a whole other problem!)
DeleteTotally agree you.
DeleteHI Mark,
ReplyDeleteGary and agree with all of your comments. Maintaining your property is one of the best things homeowners can do to improve the value of their homes and our neighborhood. Make sure you don't have large areas of dirt in your yard and the swale. Keep areas free of weeds and debris and make sure your house, roof and fences are not badly stained or covered in mildew and don't park cars on the front lawn.
Right now we have codes to enforce these issues. What changed is not allowing residents to add an approved parking surface, other than grass, on their swale. If someone now has three cars in their family and the grass on the swale is dead you can no longer add an approved parking surface on the swale. You now have to park the car in your yard on an approved parking surface. Not everyone has the room for this. You could continue parking on the swale but you have to maintain the grass which would be a problem. If you have an approved parking surface on your swale but it's deteriorated more than 50% you have to remove it and you have to replace it with grass. Why aren't residents allowed to replace it which, to us, would be an improvement. Asphalt could be replaced with a pervious material.
We've allowed adding up to a 40% approved parking surface on the swale for years. This should not be changed because a few commissioners feel it should. The same goes for now requiring every property to have a driveway.
We would be happier if the commissioners and the village manager put their efforts into educating our community and then enforcing our codes.
I hope you let the commissioners know how you feel and thanks.
I will, and thanks for you efforts, Barbara. I am sure that you, Gary, and Milton will make sure the Commissioners see the responses here on this forum.
DeleteI thought I commented on this. So I will again. Get rid of commercial parking and the boats in the driveways. Then start working on the other issues
ReplyDeleteFor "Chief":
ReplyDeletePlease contact me privately regarding your post.
Thanks,
Milton
miltonhunter@gmail.com
1. Do you think every property must have a driveway? Big no!
ReplyDelete2. Do you park on your swale and do you want to change that? I have for 17 years and it's been parked on for the previous 60+ years.
3. Do you have an improved parking surface on your swale and want to change the material? No and no.
4. Do you think no one should park on the swale, grass or parking surface material? I think parking on the swale should be allowed.
What other concerns do you have about this? I think it's crazy they can pass this ordinance not knowing and not caring about the financial impact that it can have on residents. I understand wanting to make the Park look better and agree people should not park in their grass but I personally need to spend my money on more important things. Ex. New roof, doctor bills. I'm sure I'm not alone.
Hi Scotty,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your opinions on the subject. Allow me to add a couple of my own. Codes change over time so "I've always done it this way", isn't a valid reason for keeping things as they are. It's a personal one, I get that, but not valid on a global "big picture" basis. At this point I believe the Commission understands that every property may not be able to install a driveway due to land restrictions, etc. But that's also not the case with all of the approx. 11% of BP homes that this ordinance addresses.
But, one of the points was to also not have parking on dirt pits on the swale (or on private property too)- which is Public property. That area must be properly maintained, including the grass surface. It seems you contest that part as well. Part of home ownership is property maintenance. I don't feel the Commission doesn't care about the financial impact, but are thinking on an overall basis on how to improve the curb appeal and values of our Village. Again, this effects only about 11% of homeowners.
Hope this helps-
Milt
Hi Milt,
DeleteI have no problem putting pea rock in my swale (used to be rock there) to make it look better. That would be a lot less expensive than a driveway in my yard. The other thing I don't get is grandfathering in asphalt driveways. If there should be no parking on the swale and they don't care about the cost to homeowners make everyone rip up their asphalt and put grass. That would look better and raise our property values right? The other factor I have is a big oak tree on one side of my yard and a lychee tree on the other. The only spot I could put a driveway would directly in between them, dead center to my front door. It would take up most of my yard! I don't think this would make my house look better or raise my property value.
Scotty,
DeleteAgain, welcome. It was good to see you at the last Commission meeting. Personally,(as if that mattered)... I'm no fan of the look (and upkeep) of rock >.< but hey, I don't have a vote on the issue.
I'm not sure that "no parking on the swale at all" is a realistic goal, and other options will need to be considered. But, do we agree that cars should be parked on "some approved surface" as opposed to just dirt? If so, that's step 1.
As far as property values go, it's more than just where we park our cars and on what surface. But we need to identify areas for improvement and get started there, amiright? That's really what this is all about. We've had most of these code in the books for years, we just haven't enforced them due to poor leadership, direction or design. Getting our cars into a "designated parking area" and on some type of approved surface will be a step in the right direction, IMO.
Thanks for your input-
Hi Scotty,
ReplyDeleteI don't have a problem with pervious materials on the swale either. I think before some changes are made the residents should have more input. Good maintenance of yards and Swales help us all. This isn't something that should be decided at a commission meeting. There are many different circumstances in Biscayne Park like your trees. By making decisions based on the preferences of five sometimes three commissioners is not the way we should be doing things.
I hope you let the commissioners know how you feel. Thanks.