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 | 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 | Apr 1, 2019 | Billboards, City Signs, Codes, Legal
Photo: Google Maps, Art: The Real Deal
“The owner of a commercial building in the Miami Design District is suing the city for approving a billboard ban that allegedly sunk the value of the property by nearly $5 million.
Karenza Apartments LLP, which owns the building at 100 Northeast 38th Street, alleges it also lost a lucrative contract with a billboard advertiser after city commissioners passed the measure that prohibits billboards north of I-95, at the behest of Miami Design District developer Craig Robins of Dacra…
According to the complaint, the city commission passed the ban on second reading on July 27, 2017, about a year after it was introduced by Commissioner Keon Hardemon at Robins’ request. At the time, Karenza had an agreement with Becker Boards Miami to place a large mural above its one-story property, which is currently occupied by the offices of architecture firm Shulman + Associates. Karenza’s building was one of three properties in the Design District with billboard permits, the lawsuit states.
Karenza claims the city commission ignored a planning and zoning appeals board recommendation that its building be grandfathered in because the proposed measure included an exemption for one of the other neighboring billboard properties, at 3704 Northeast Second Avenue…
On Aug. 26, 2017, when the ban took effect, Becker Boards Miami relocated its mural to a property south of I-195 since Karenza’s property was no longer allowed to have billboards. Karenza is suing the city for $4.8 million in damages, which represents the dollar amount of the property’s diminished value, the suit states…”
— Francisco Alvarado, Research Haru Coryne, The Real Deal South Florida Real Estate News
Read entire article
by TRC_Admin | Feb 27, 2019 | Legal, Trees
“Tree pruning, trimming, or removal on residential property”
“…A local government may not enforce an ordinance or regulation governing the pruning, trimming, or removal of trees on residential property which requires a permit, an application, the provision of notice, a fee, or a fine when either of the following applies:
The residential property is in a county that is subject to a tropical storm watch or warning or a hurricane watch or warning or is experiencing a tropical storm, a hurricane, or a declared state of emergency, and the property owner has determined that a tree on his or her property is damaged,diseased, or pest-infested, or presents a danger to others or property.
The property owner has obtained from an arborist who is certified by a certification program of the International Dociety of Arboriculture proof that the tree is damaged, diseased, or pest-infested, or presents a danger to others or property.
A local government may not require a property owner to replant a tree that has been removed in accordance with this section…”
— From SB 1400 as of 2/27/2019
Keep up with current status of SB1400 here
by TRC_Admin | Aug 1, 2018 | Legal, Litter, Trash
Photo: NWF Daily News
“…Walton County is notifying coastal private property owners that its crews will no longer collect garbage from the beaches at their homes or condominiums.
County Attorney Sidney Noyes told county commissioners Tuesday that enough owners had refused to back off previous requests to keep county vehicles off their land to warrant the decision to halt all garbage collections.
‘Unfortunately, even though some of these individual private property owners have rescinded their requests, others are not willing to, so it looks like we will not be able to continue the garbage collection service on private property,’ Noyes told the board.
Noyes said letters would be sent out Tuesday or Wednesday to inform all owners that as of Aug. 13 they would be responsible for picking up their own beach trash, something Walton’s Tourist Development Council has done for years…
The county’s move is the latest fallout from the July 1 implementation of a new state law. HB 631 wiped out Walton County’s customary use ordinance and gave private beachfront owners the ability to post no trespassing signs on their property and prevent people from accessing dry sand areas there…
Sheriff Michael Adkinson, whose deputies have been called upon regularly since July 1 to mediate property disputes on local beaches, has said consistently his deputies are not going to charge anyone on the beach with criminal trespass.
Nonetheless, Commission Chairman Bill Chapman argued at Tuesday’s meeting that the county couldn’t risk collecting trash on private property for fear an arrest would result.
‘I don’t want to see legal action taken, criminally, by our guys going up and down there and picking up the trash,’ Chapman said. ‘I don’t want guys driving being subjected to arrest by the sheriff because we’ve violated a demand letter.’
..Litigation seems to be on the horizon. Attorney and customary use advocate Steve Uhlfelder warned commissioners Tuesday that by refusing garbage collection the private property owners were strengthening an argument against customary use. He urged them to continue sending crews to pick up trash in defiance of the no trespassing warnings.
‘Don’t go along with it. Go pick up the trash and maintain the beaches, otherwise you will be giving up some legal arguments,’ Uhlfelder said. “I don’t think you should be dictated to’…”
— Tom McLaughlin, nwfDailyNews.com
Read entire article
