Message to Eye on Miami readers: SDM will be taking a look at the development plans for the Palmetto Bay Village Center (a.k.a., the old Burger King Property) before they come up for a vote next time. We thought the objections to the plan were over-the-top given its scope, but we understand our duty here and will review the concept as objectively as we can.Message to South Dade Matters: You had better look at the EAR now! SDM: Wasn't Silver given property or perks in another area to make up for the Parks and Recreation zoning on the property near the Bay? I seem to remember him getting something (why sould he agree to it otherwise) for the change so I don't think he can claim a taking, especially since that is the zoning now. I understand the property is degraded but it is not ruined, there remains many environmental elements. Thank you for getting back to me SDM.
P.S. People should know that a charette is not a legal meeting. It is like a screening of a pilot TV show: People give their opinions. Nothing is binding.
I am still an inquiring mind and I still want to know what is going on.
7 comments:
you're right he did get something in exchange,I think he got more floors for a senior living space that he was building or nursing home or something I just don't recall. But he was compensated.
The property was given to Palmetto Bay with the deed restriction on it the deed restriction lifting or changing would have to go through the county. if it was Parks and Recreation when the county transferred the land to the village then it would be under the Dan Paul amendment.
But was it zoned parks when it was deeded from the county? If no dear Dan Paul does not apply.
I don't know much about the deal, but from what I have read, it seems very fishy and should be stopped. Also, the guest blogger is being given an odd amount of leeway to communicate with another blog. If the guest blogger is Eugene Flinn as I suspect, he should just say so!
I maintain my own blog, under my own name: www.palmettobayupdates.com so you will know when it is me communicating with EOM.
If there were a deed restriction or a covenant accepted when it was county property, shouldn't the county commission be the ones to hear any attempt to lift it? Two things come to mind: 1. since when is a covenant a simple oh I had my fingers crossed kind of promise? It is supposed to run with the land - in perpetuity - unless it is simply illegal (e.g. discriminatory). Two -- people in favor of incorporation always argued that it was about bringing government closer to the people. I do not think the intent was to make this kind of deal less visible to the rest of the county and less likely to cause a stir. Environmental lands - whether pristine of not - still provide wildlife corridors. Destroying sites is a little like damming a river upstream and telling the down-stream neighbors - oh touch luck! Please -- Palmetto Bayer's -- grow up, make noise and show that you do care about being a city that respects parks and wildlife.
On the issue of the covenant, it requires 75% voter approval from the
residents in the neighborhood to the west. But only if the application is submitted by the owner of the property. By having the Village Mayor submit the applications to change the land use and zoning, the requirement to obtain voter approval is eliminated. This is the reason that the proposal is coming from the Village because the property owner is afraid that if approval of 75% of the nearby residents is required, he would never be able to obtain the necessary approvals to build in this forest. Plain and simple, it is a scheme to bypass the voters and the covenant requirement of 75% approval. Maybe Mr. Flinn or some other knowledgeable attorney would be willing to comment on this detail. Also it would be nice to hear what South Dade Matters and EOM think about pulling such a fast one on the nearby residents. Also these covenants are zoning covenants and are only enforced by the local zoning authority, NOT the county. It is up to this council to give it all away or enforce it and please do not accept at face value anyone who claims otherwise. Demand proof.
Post a Comment