His argument is 'disingenuous and short sighted'

Mr. Snyder's argument that somehow the current NCD language should NOT be changed because it is working is disingenuous and short sighted.  

1. The current language has NOT worked at all for many years (walk down your blocks and count how many white boxes you see) until many neighbors, including Mr. Snyder and myself and many  others, started showing up at commission meetings, at the City Attorney's office, doing Public Records requests and actually READING the NCD.  The seminal moment in the turning of the tides was the denial of the BAttersea Woods plat.  After that big uproar the city decided it was time to "change" how they were interpreting the NCD and institute some "CRITERIA" to how warrants would be processed and ultimately how lot splits would or wouldn't be allowed . Make no mistake that Lot splitting IS currently ALLOWED in the NCD 3.6.g.1  states "No building sites in existence prior to September 24, 2005 shall be diminished in size except by Warrant, subject to the criteria specified in Article 4, Table 12 Design Review Criteria. Mr Snyder never quotes this part of the current NCD code but it is CRITICAL to the issue at hand. 

After Battersea Woods,  Planning and Zoning created an "internal memo" that was not codified but allowed the administrator to direct staff to put in place these criteria when reviewing warrant requests for lot diminishment. I have seen the memo and those criteria are a.)  Identify abutting lot frontages b) identify the average lot sizes in a 500 ft radius b) look at the underlying plats. From there P&Z  would determine along with criteria of Article 4 Table 12 if the lot split met the criteria and thus approve or deny. Mr. Snyder points to the two denials that have occurred recently (Avocado and Loquat) as reason now to make "No Change" to the current code because it is working.  Yes it is working but I for one vehemently disagree that we should lnot codify these criteria (as Coral Gables has) and leave it up to the descretion of the Planning and Zoning administrator. Mr. Snyder feels that the residents should simply "trust" that this memo will be followed without challenge or change. I disagree and would prefer those criteria (and others) are CODIFIED so that residents, developers and everyone is CLEAR on how this law works and will be implemented. 

2.) My Snyder continually refers to Coral Gables Code as NOT allowing lot splits -again very wrong.  Again, he quotes only one portion of the ordinance and leaves out the rest. Lot splits ARE allowed in Coral Gables.     However, what is different there is that they have...wait for it!....you guessed it codified criteria Article 3-206 Building Site Determination Pg 48-49 of the code (please read it for yourselves)  http://coralgables.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=7951lays out the very process for developers to use for a LOT SEPARATION and the very specific criteria that must be met in order to gain approval to, as Coral Gables words it, to "create a new building site"  - their version of splitting lots. These criteria are remarkably similar to the ones in the inter-office memo at the City of Miami Planning and Zoning dept as well as the initial new lot splitting language submitted to PZAB on July 31. 

Grove 2030, Grove Watch, Coconut Grove Village Council reps and others have been working for over a year to push the city to make changes.  And contrary to Mr.Snyder's accusations that somehow Grove 2030 has an agenda to urbanize Coconut Grove, our recommended changes on Feb 22 do exactly the opposite as Mr. Snyder himself acknowledges by saying there are some good ideas in the document.  For clarification the only reason they did NOT address lot-plitting originally(because it was so difficult to get consensus even in our own group on what those restrictions and clarifications should so we instead asked the city to come up with language to CLARIFY the code so that we could discuss  and review in public.  

Mr. Snyder has a right to his opinion on which language is better but making arguments without properly citing the facts leads one to believe he is either disingenuous or simply hasn't bothered to do his homework. 

I sincerely hope that all residents of the Grove can work together to come up with common sense solutions to the bigger problem of protecting the Character of the Grove. I can guarantee one thing, that those who are enjoying the loopholes a unclear and loose code provides must be reading all these posts of neighbor pitted against neighbor and loving the fact that we are getting bogged down with a silly back and forth.

Let's show up Saturday ready to work together. Come with your questions your comments your input and decide for yourselves, arm yourself with knowledge, read the code, ask questions, stay engaged. 

Johannah Brown
Coconut Grove