Miami-Dade
Legislative Item File Number: 122471 |
Printable PDF Format |
File Number: 122471 | File Type: Ordinance | Status: In Committee | ||||||||
Version: 0 | Reference: | Control: Board of County Commissioners | ||||||||
|
||||||||||
Requester: NONE | Cost: | Final Action: | ||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Sunset Provision: No | Effective Date: | Expiration Date: |
Registered Lobbyist: | None Listed |
Legislative History |
|||||||
Acting Body | Date | Agenda Item | Action | Sent To | Due Date | Returned | Pass/Fail |
|
|||||||
Board of County Commissioners | 2/5/2013 | 7B | Amended | ||||
REPORT: | SEE LEGISLATIVE FILE NO. 130278 FOR AMENDED VERSION. | ||||||
|
|||||||
Infrastructure and Land Use Committee | 1/16/2013 | 1F2 | Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation | P | |||
REPORT: | Assistant County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Chairwoman Jordan opened the public hearing on the foregoing proposed ordinance. She closed the public hearing after no one appeared wishing to speak. Chairwoman Jordan opened the floor for questions or comments from members of the Committee. Commissioner Diaz noted some neighborhoods do not allow chain link fences in front of houses. He asked whether the sponsor had taken this into account when she proposed this ordinance, and said he wished she was present to discuss this item. He inquired whether this proposed ordinance would apply in municipalities, and whether this ordinance would supersede their zoning regulations. Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel indicated that the proposed ordinance would be part of the County Zoning Code and would not apply countywide. He said that if a municipality had a different regulation, the proposed ordinance would not supersede it. He noted this ordinance would delete a specific restriction in the County Zoning Code, and would not delete other requirements in the Code. He stated that in most residential districts, the proposed ordinance would authorize the use of chain link fences, unless there was a separate homeowners’ agreement which restricted their use. Commissioner Diaz reiterated that he would prefer to hear from the sponsor before taking any action on the proposed ordinance. In response to Commissioner Edmonson’s question, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel confirmed that this proposed ordinance would only apply in unincorporated Miami-Dade County. Commissioner Edmonson said it appeared that the sponsor was only concerned about the street side, or the aesthetics in front of the house, and not with the neighbor’s side. She noted she concurred with Commissioner Diaz, because if a property owner had a neighbor who erected this type of fence, he/she would have no say in the matter even though this could lower the value of his/her property. Commissioner Edmonson indicated that she could only support moving this proposed ordinance forward without a recommendation. Commissioner Monestime noted he concurred with Commissioners Diaz and Edmonson, and would prefer to hear from the sponsor before voting on this item. He said that he would support moving this proposed ordinance forward without a recommendation. Commissioner Zapata asked whether ordinances prohibiting the use of chain link fences were approved in the past; whether the foregoing proposed ordinance would reverse them; and if these ordinances were being reversed for legal imperatives. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel confirmed that the foregoing proposed ordinance would reverse ordinances currently in effect, but that they were not being reversed for legal imperatives. Chairwoman Jordan indicated that she voted in favor of this item during the first reading because she wanted to thoroughly understand the issue before voting against it. She pointed out that this item was reversing a regulation that was intended to make the neighborhoods more attractive, and reversing this regulation would mean that the Commission was regressing. Chairwoman Jordan pointed out that if this item was adopted, nothing would prevent a homeowner from putting a chain link fence in front of his/her home, in the even that it was located in a neighborhood which was part of unincorporated Miami-Dade County, had no other homes with chain link fences, and no homeowners' association. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel confirmed that Chairwoman Jordan was generally correct; however, he noted, a specific property may be subject to an underlying zoning approval that would restrict this. He advised that it would be necessary to go property by property or development by development to determine whether these types of fences were allowed. Chairwoman Jordan noted at least three commissioners wanted to move this item without a recommendation, but she would vote against it. Commissioner Diaz pointed out that perhaps the sponsor would put forth an amendment that would render the item more acceptable. Commissioner Monestime said that he could not support the portion of this item that allows chain linked fences in front of a property. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Committee members proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed ordinance, as presented. | ||||||
|
|||||||
Office of the Chairperson | 1/15/2013 | Scrivener's Errors | 1/16/2013 | ||||
REPORT: | This item as originally printed inadvertently included language noting differences between original and substitute items considered at first reading. This item has been reprinted to delete the notations. | ||||||
|
|||||||
Board of County Commissioners | 12/18/2012 | 4A SUBSTITUTE | Adopted on first reading | 1/16/2013 | P | ||
REPORT: | The foregoing proposed ordinance was adopted on first reading and scheduled for a public hearing before the Infrastructure & Land Use Committee on Wednesday, January 16, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. | ||||||
|
|||||||
Board of County Commissioners | 12/18/2012 | Tentatively scheduled for a public hearing | Infrastructure and Land Use Committee | 1/16/2013 | |||
|
|||||||
County Attorney | 12/17/2012 | Assigned | Dennis A. Kerbel | ||||
|
|||||||
County Attorney | 12/17/2012 | Referred | Infrastructure and Land Use Committee | 1/16/2013 | |||
|
|||||||
Office of the Chairperson | 12/17/2012 | Additions | |||||
|
Legislative Text |
TITLE ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING; MODIFYING REGULATIONS REGARDING CHAIN LINK FENCES AND FINISHING OF FENCE SIDES; AMENDING SECTIONS 33-11 AND 33-311 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA (�CODE�); PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1. Section 33-11 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 33-11. - Fences, walls, bus shelters and hedges. (a) Permits; conformance to requirements; erection on property lines. Permits shall be required for all walls and fences, and except as may be approved as a result of public hearings, walls, fences, which obscure or obstruct vision, and hedges shall be restricted to the height, location and type as indicated hereinafter, and except when a higher wall, fence or hedge is required as a visual screening buffer at the rear of double frontage lots under Chapter 28 of this Code. Except as hereinafter restricted, all walls, fences and hedges may be placed on the property lines. This section, however, shall not be construed to permit such walls, fences and hedges to extend beyond the official right-of-way lines or property lines. [[Notwithstanding anything in the code to the contrary, chain link fences in residential zoning districts shall be permitted only behind the front building line. It is provided, however, that the aforementioned restriction on chain link fences shall not apply in AU and GU zoning districts trended agricultural. It is further provided that the aforementioned restriction shall not apply to chain link fences surrounding a residential community maintained by a condominium or homeowners association or by a special taxing district. Chain link fences lawfully existing prior to the effective date of this ordinance which as a result of this ordinance become nonconforming shall be exempt from Section 33-35(c).]] (b) Exterior finish of walls and fences. All walls and fences shall be maintained in good, clean and finished condition. [[A fence with a finished and unfinished side shall be erected so that the unfinished side and supporting members face inward toward the interior of the property. Furthermore, all]] >>All<< fences >>that face a public street<< shall have the finished side facing the [[neighboring property or]] street (outward). A continuous wall or fence that is owned by multiple property owners or held in common ownership shall be of uniform construction and materials and its exterior shall also be maintained in good, clean and finished condition for the entire length of said wall or fence. Each side of a CBS wall shall be completely finished with stucco and paint. Each side of a decorative masonry wall shall be completely painted; however, walls comprised of decorative brick and natural stone may be left unpainted provided the cement and grout are finished on both sides. If a wall is to be placed on a shared property line, consent for access must be obtained from the adjoining property owner(s) prior to finishing the opposite side of the wall. If such consent cannot be obtained, the property owner erecting the wail must present proof that a request for access approval was mailed to every adjacent property owner, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the mailing address(es) as listed in the most current Miami-Dade County tax roll, and the mailing was returned undeliverable or the adjacent property owner(s) failed to respond to the request within thirty (30) days after receipt. Upon such a showing, the property owner erecting the wall shall not be required to finish the opposite side of the wall. * * * * Section 2. Section 33-311 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 33-311. - Community Zoning Appeals Board�Authority and duties. (A) Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, the Community Zoning Appeals Boards and Board of County Commissioners shall have the authority and duty to consider and act upon applications, as hereinafter set forth, after first considering the written recommendations thereon of the Director or Developmental Impact Committee. * * * * (14) Alternative Site Development Option for Single-family and Duplex Dwellings. This subsection provides for the establishment of an alternative site development option, after public hearing, for single-family and duplex dwellings, when such uses are permitted by the underlying district regulations, in the GU, RU-1, RU-1Z, RU-1M(a), RU-1M(b), RU-2, RU-TH, RU-3, RU-3M, RU-3B, RU-4L, RU-4M, RU-4, RU-4A, RU-5, EU-M, EU-S, EU-1, EU-1C, EU-2, and AU zoning districts, in accordance with the standards established herein. In considering any application for approval hereunder, the Community Zoning Appeals Board shall consider the same subject to approval of a site plan or such other plans as necessary to demonstrate compliance with the standards herein. * * * * (f) An alternative maximum height of walls, hedges or fences for a single-family or duplex dwelling shall be approved upon demonstration of the following: * * * * (5) proposed fences shall be constructed or installed so that >>the sides are "finished" in accordance with the applicable regulations<< [[the "unfinished" side is directed inward toward the center of the parcel proposed for alternative development]]; and (6) proposed fences are constructed of durable materials and are decorative; and (7) [[proposed fences are not comprised of chain link or other wire mesh, unless located in an AU or GU with AU trend zoning district; and (8)]] Safe sight distance triangles are maintained pursuant to this code. * * * * (15) Alternative Site Development Option for Single-family Zero Lot line Dwellings. This subsection provides for the establishment of an alternative site development option, after public hearing, for zero lot line dwellings, when such uses are permitted by the underlying district regulations, or when such uses were approved for development by a prior public hearing action, in accordance with the standards established herein. In considering any application for approval hereunder, the Community Zoning Appeals Board shall consider the same subject to approval of a site plan or such other plans as necessary to demonstrate compliance with the standards herein. * * * * (d) An alternative maximum height of walls, hedges or fences for a zero lot line dwelling shall be approved upon demonstration of the following: * * * * (5) proposed fences shall be constructed or installed so that >>the sides are "finished" in accordance with the applicable regulations<< [[the "unfinished" side is directed inward toward the center of the parcel proposed for alternative development]]; and (6) proposed fences are constructed of durable materials and are decorative; and (7) [[proposed fences are not comprised of chain link or other wire mesh; and (8)]] Safe sight distance triangles are maintained pursuant to this code. * * * * >>(15.1)<< [[(15)]] Alternative Site Development Option for Three-unit or Four-unit Apartment House, Multiple-Family Apartment House Use and Multiple-Family Housing Developments. This subsection provides for the establishment of an alternative site development option, after public hearing, for three-unit or four-unit apartment house use, multiple-family apartment house use and multiple-family housing developments, when such uses are permitted by the applicable district regulations, in the RU-3, RU-3M, RU-4L, RU-4M, RU-4, RU-4A, and RU-5 zoning districts, in accordance with the standards established herein. In considering any application for approval hereunder, the Community Zoning Appeals Board shall consider the same subject to approval of a site plan or such other plans as necessary to demonstrate compliance with the standards herein. * * * * (h) An alternative maximum height of walls, hedges or fences for a three-unit or four-unit apartment house use, multiple-family apartment house use or multiple-family housing development shall be approved upon demonstration of the following: * * * * (5) proposed fences shall be constructed or installed so that the sides are "finished" in accordance with the applicable regulations; and (6) proposed fences are constructed of durable materials and are decorative; and (7) [[proposed fences are not comprised of chain link or other wire mesh; and (8)]] Safe sight distance triangles are maintained pursuant to this code. * * * * (20) Alternative Site Development Option for Semi-Professional Office Buildings and Structures. This subsection provides for the establishment of an alternative site development option, after public hearing, for semi-professional office buildings and structures, when such uses are permitted by the underlying district regulations, in the RU-5 and RU-5A zoning districts, in accordance with the standards established herein. In considering any application for approval hereunder, the Community Zoning Appeals Board shall consider the same subject to approval of a site plan or such other plans as necessary to demonstrate compliance with the standards herein. * * * * (g) An alternative maximum height of walls, hedges or fences for a commercial development shall be approved upon demonstration of the following: * * * * (5) proposed fences shall be constructed or installed so that all sides of the fence are "finished" in accordance with the applicable regulations; and (6) proposed fences are constructed of durable materials and are decorative; and (7) [[proposed fences are not comprised of chain link or other wire mesh; and (8)]] Safe sight distance triangles are maintained pursuant to this code. * * * * Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity. Section 4. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance, including any sunset provision, shall become and be made a part of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate word. Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of enactment unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective only upon an override by this Board. 1 Words stricken through and/or [[double bracketed]] shall be deleted. Words underscored and/or >>double arrowed<< constitute the amendment proposed. Remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged. |
Home |
Agendas |
Minutes |
Legislative Search |
Lobbyist Registration |
Legislative Reports
Home | Using Our Site | About | Phone Directory | Privacy | Disclaimer
E-mail your comments,
questions and suggestions to
Webmaster
|