by TRC_Admin | Mar 7, 2020 | Codes, Legal, Uncategorized
Photo: State of Florida
“…SB 954 (Perry) and CS/CS/HB 459 (Overdorf) preempt local governments from adopting zoning and development regulations that require specific building design elements for single- and two-family dwellings, unless certain conditions are met. The bills define the term “building design elements” to mean exterior color, type or style of exterior cladding; style or material of roof structures or porches; exterior nonstructural architectural ornamentation; location or architectural styling of windows or doors; and number, type, and layout of rooms.
The bills provide a limited exemption from the preemption by allowing allow local governments to adopt and enforce regulations that require “building design elements” for single- and two-family dwellings only if they are listed on the Historical Preservation Registry, housed within a Community Redevelopment Agency or if regulations are adopted in order to implement the National Flood Insurance Program.
The bills also allow a substantially affected person to petition the Florida Building Commission to review a local government regulation to determine if the regulation is actually an unauthorized amendment to the Building Code. ”
— Florida League of Cities
Read entire alert here
Read St Petersburg city staff presentation on this subject here
Florida Senate Bill 459
by TRC_Admin | Aug 31, 2019 | Codes, Technology, Utility Towers
Photo: A small cell tower across the street from the Orange County Courthouse. The corresponding radio equipment is located in a portion of the adjacent garbage can. Ryan Gillespie, Orlando Sentinel
“…Orlando’s planning department has projected carriers will need about 20,000 nodes to bring about 60% coverage, with the most needed to bring strong coverage to dense downtown and touristy International Drive. At a City Council workshop this month, officials said they and the municipally-owned Orlando Utilities Commission were studying how to encourage carriers to attach their antennas and radio equipment to the same poles, preventing equipment clutter on Orange Avenue.
‘What we have beginning to happen is a lot of nodes occurring on Orange Avenue. If you were to line them all up, you’d be looking at a node every 90 feet,’ Chief Planner Doug Metzger said. ‘In my perfect world, I’d love to get two providers on every node.”
For that to happen, carriers would need to either agree to share new poles installed throughout the city or reach an agreement with OUC to install equipment on the utility’s tower. OUC has some small-cell agreements for antennas to be installed on its poles, though they currently don’t yet have 5G antennas, utility spokesman Tim Trudell said.
The study is underway, and Metzger said he hopes a plan is developed by early October.
Florida cities maintain limited leverage over carriers in Florida, as state legislators pre-empted municipalities from regulating wireless infrastructure in 2017 and further restricted it in 2019.
The 2017 legislation, sponsored in the House by state Rep. Mike La Rosa, R-St. Cloud, is being challenged in a lawsuit filed by the Florida League of Cities, along with Naples, Port Orange and Fort Walton Beach, which contend the law allows private businesses to take over city property, with a $150 per pole cap as a fee.
‘We felt the Legislature’s actions were pretty egregious in those two narrow areas,’ said Kraig Conn, general counsel for the League of Cities…
Elsewhere in Central Florida, Winter Park could also see early interest from 5G companies. The city has had talks with carriers, though its city commission hasn’t formally reviewed policy on 5G.
However, Winter Park shares aesthetic concerns, as it has spent millions in recent years burying its power lines, while state law now allows carriers to build poles in the public right of way…”
— Ryan Gillespie, Orlando Sentinel
Read entire article
by TRC_Admin | Jun 30, 2019 | Codes, Legal
Photo: Miami Herald
“A bill that will ban local governments from regulating vegetable gardens — and herb, fruit and flower gardens — is headed to the governor’s desk.[update: signed]
The conversation surrounding vegetable gardens is rooted in a legal dispute about an ordinance in Miami Shores that banned the gardens from being planted in front yards. Hermine Ricketts and Tom Carroll, who ate from their vegetable garden for 17 years, sued the village after they faced $50 in daily fines after the village amended its ordinance in 2013. They had to dig up their garden — which can’t grow in their backyard because of a lack of sun. Gone were their tomatoes, beets, scallions, spinach, kale and multiple varieties of Asian cabbage to boot.
In November 2017, an appeals court upheld a ruling that the couple does not have a constitutional right to grow vegetables in their front yard. They appealed the ruling to the Florida Supreme Court, which declined to grant review.
The main opponent to both vegetable garden bills has been the Florida League of Cities, who have argued that the unique aesthetic of Florida’s cities are brought about through code enforcement. They also argued against the idea of preemption, which would undo rules like a 2013 Orlando ordinance that allows residents to use 60 percent of their front yard as a vegetable garden.
While other concerns over too much preemption came up in committee, the bill specifies that the language does not apply to other regulations like limits on water use during droughts, regulated fertilizer use or the control of invasive species.”
— Dara Kam And News Service Of Florida, South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Read entire article
Read article about Miami Shores legal battle how Senators got involved
The Senate bill and it’s history
by TRC_Admin | Jun 1, 2019 | City Signs, Codes, Legal, Snipe Signs
Photo: Will Warasila, New Yorker
“The small city of Bel-Nor, Missouri is at least temporarily blocked from enforcing a local law that restricts homeowners from displaying more than one sign at a time on their property, under a federal appeals court ruling issued on Monday.
Lawrence Willson, who owns and lives in a single-family home in Bel-Nor, sued the city in January 2018, alleging the ordinance trammeled his free speech rights and other constitutional protections. The city cited him because he had three signs in his yard.
One said ‘Black Lives Matter,’ another ‘Clinton Kaine’ and the third ‘Jason Kander U.S. Senate.’ Each of the signs is about 18 by 24 inches, according to Tony Rothert, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, who is representing Willson.
“In our view, a one-sign restriction is too restrictive of speech,’ Rothert said by phone on Monday.
He went on to describe yard signs as an important form of speech with a ‘communicative value that is unmatched’ in other mediums.
‘It’s different than buying a billboard, or taking out an ad in the paper, or even writing a letter to the editor, to put what you believe in front of your home,’ Rothert said.
The city has argued that its ordinance is ‘content-neutral’ and regulates all sorts of signs in the same way, and is therefore not subject to heightened legal scrutiny. It has cited traffic safety, especially preventing distractions for drivers, as a main consideration with the sign restrictions…
A federal district court last March denied Willson’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which would have prevented Bel-Nor from enforcing the law, at least while the court case played out.
But a three-judge panel for the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has now reversed that decision.
In an 11-page ruling, the court said Willson is likely to succeed on the merits of his free speech challenge under the First Amendment against the local government ordinance and sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
A Bel-Nor police officer in June 2017 left Willson a written warning that by displaying his three signs he was violating part of the city code, according to the complaint Willson filed in federal district court.
The code, at that time, limited residential property to one ‘political advertising’ sign and said ‘political signs’ had to be removed within 15 days after an election.”
— Bill Lucia, Route Fifty
Read entire article in Route Fifty. NOTE: Due to an unusual ad strategy this article’s complete and detailed content can be easy to miss. There is a small link to go past the full width ad and continue reading.
Read article in New Yorker about art installation in photo above.
by TRC_Admin | Jun 1, 2019 | City Signs, Codes, Snipe Signs
Photo: Dave DeJohn, Spectrum News
“The street advertisements known as snipe signs can be found littering many major roadways, and officials in Tavares are moving to crack down.
The city has won several beautification awards, and officials don’t want the signs ruining that.
Tavares spokesman Mark O’Keefe said the city’s Code Enforcement officers remove the signs, only to see them go right back up again. At a meeting recently, City Administrator John Drury and City Council members discussed the issue with police officials and decided to step up enforcement by citing chronic offenders.
‘Snipe signs scattered throughout your whole community are not very attractive, and so we’re looking at bringing the enforcement up to the next level to curtail the number of snipe signs that are rampant throughout Tavares,’ Drury said then.
So now they are having police issue $100 fines to repeat offenders.
‘The citizens of Tavares and the public administration have noticed an ever increasing litter problem created by these items called snipe signs,’ O’Keefe said.
Antwan Brown, who owns a lawn care business, has seen his share of roadside debris, including plenty of snipe signs.
‘Sometimes the paper comes off of them, and then you’re stuck with the metal piece in the ground or (they) wind up laying down on the ground. Then when you’re not paying attention, trying to get the job done real fast, the metal part ends up shooting out into traffic and now you got a problem,’ Brown said…”
— Dave DeJohn, Spectrum News
Read entire article
by TRC_Admin | Jun 1, 2019 | City Signs, Codes, Feather Flags, Snipe Signs
Photo: Gregg Pachkowski, Pensacola News Journal
“Santa Rosa County has been cracking down on unlawful snipe and feather signs in front of businesses.
Santa Rosa County Commissioners were at a near deadlock Monday about whether to pull back enforcement of the county’s feather sign ordinance, which has angered small business owners as the revamped code enforcement department has implemented a crackdown in recent weeks…
The problem is that although the ordinance regarding feather signs has been in the county books for decades, it hasn’t actually been enforced until last month. Multiple small business owners who have been using feather signs for years told commissioners they were surprised to learn they were prohibited.
Eric Vines, who owns a small business called Cellular Nerd, said he was visited by code enforcement and asked to remove his signs. He called the ordinance ‘misleading’ and said the rules ‘don’t make any sense.’
District 2 Commissioner Bob Cole said it wasn’t the board’s intent to hurt small businesses when it opted to strengthen the code enforcement department in January, and added that ‘it’s my fault for perhaps not reading the code long and hard enough.’
‘Derelict vessels, derelict automobiles, derelict housing, tattered signs, and the snipe signs that are on public property … in the public right of way, were my concerns,’ Cole said. “It certainly wasn’t to involve businesses and hurt businesses…”
But County Attorney Roy Andrews and County Administrator Dan Schebler warned against ceasing to enforce all sign ordinances, saying it could open up a “Pandora’s box” and lead to rampant sign usage throughout the county.
‘To me, this is about what do we want Santa Rosa County to look like?’ Schebler said. ”
— Annie Blanks, Pensacola News Journal
Read entire articlehttps://www.pnj.com/story/news/2019/05/06/santa-rosa-county-code-enforcement-sign-crackdown-upsets-businesses/1118960001/
