Distorted view of proposed NCD changes?

The letter to the editor of the Coconut Grove Grapevine by David Villano defending the current proposal amending ORDINANCE NO. 13114 presents a distorted view of the proposed changes to NCD code. One almost wonders if Mr. Villano read the proposed amendment. 

The proposed amendment would gut the code not strengthen it. The current language in the code which this amendment would remove is modeled on, and very similar to, Coral Gables code. It has been tested in the courts dating back to 1978 where justice Kehoe  stated: "The obvious intent of the Ordinance was to prevent developers, etc., from coming into Coral Gables, tearing down existing residences on large lots, and then building more residences on smaller lots"  (perhaps this should be added to the existing language so that everyone gets it) . See Holladay vs. Coral Gables 1980 3rd district court of appeals where the court found the critical language of the code to be within the purview of a municipality’s police (zoning) power.

Grove 2030 submitted to the commissioner's office a draft of proposed changes to the NCD overlay zoning regulations on February 22, 2017. That draft contained none of the changes in the current amendment proposal. That draft did not change the critical language in the NCD code which the current amendment would strike. While our board did not agree with all in the Feb. 22 proposal it did contain  some good ideas to which Mr. Villano refers in his letter to the editor. None of those ideas are in the current proposed amendment. 

This is the language to be stricken by the current amendment:

Wherever an existing single-family residence or lawful accessory building(s) or structure(s) is located on one or more platted lots or portions thereof, such lots shall thereafter constitute only one building site and

Here is the language from the Gables code "Wherever there may exist a single family residence or duplex building which was heretofore constructed on a building site containing one or more platted lots or portion thereof, said building site shall not hereafter be reduced or diminished in any manner and if said single family residence or duplex building is demolished or removed therefrom, no permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one such building on said building site."

The proposed amendment begins  "The intent of the NCD-3 is to preserve and retain a variety of Lot sizes. However there are property owners who want to diminish ( lot-split) an existing building site or Lot; therefore, the Planning Department has created minimum standards and criteria that must be adhered to."  (These are actually a smorgasbord of options developers and their attorneys and others can use to split building sites).

While people may want to buy large lots or large multi-lot sites, and split them into multiple small lots, that is against the law. See Holladay vs. Coral Gables 1980 3rd district court of appeals. In this case the court upheld and applied the critical language in the Coral Gables code. This established the standing law for the past 37 years. Let’s not strike the language. Let’s not let greed destroy the nature and character of our neighborhoods.

I am not a developer, realtor, real estate investor, and have no financial conflict of interest in this matter. Our Organization is grass roots. Our Goals do not include Urbanizing the single family districts of Coconut Grove, as it appears the goals of Grove 2030 do. How many members of the group which drafted this proposed amendment (not the 2/22/17 proposal) can say the same?

If you don't want lot-splitting (AKA diminishment), with the associated destruction of Canopy, try to show up and speak up at the workshop Saturday 9:30 am-12:30 pm at 4000 Grand Avenue.

John Snyder
President,
South Grove Neighborhood Association Inc.
savethegrove16@gmail.com