The Wellington Village Council on Tuesday postponed the final reading of an ordinance that would permanently replace an emergency measure passed after Hurricane Wilma that permitted horse owners to board their animals temporarily in tents if their stalls are damaged during a natural disaster.
Councilwoman Anne Gerwig asked whether there is a definition of natural disasters in the village’s code, and Planning & Development Services Director Tim Stillings said there is not.
“It would be based on the governor’s declaration,” Stillings said. “It would give the council some latitude in determining when you want to exercise this provision.”
The original emergency ordinance was effective only for a year and property owners had to remove the shelters by May 2006. The ordinance under discussion to replace it would allow a temporary suspension on the prohibition of tents in equestrian areas after a natural disaster without the need for a special ordinance.
A building official must determine that the structure has substantial damage and cannot be occupied due to the disaster. A property owner must apply for a permit, and the tent must be removed within 24 months, with potential for a one-time, six-month extension, or within two weeks of receiving a certificate of occupancy.
Councilman Matt Willhite said the provisions of the ordinance seemed vague.
“It just seems like an oxymoron to have a temporary suspension of a prohibition. Are you bringing back the prohibition? How long is temporary?” he asked.
Stillings said the length of time would be determined by the council based on the extent of the damage.
Village Manager Paul Schofield said building permits are normally issued for one year, with an allowance for a six-month extension.
Councilman Howard Coates said he supported the ordinance but thought there was potential for abuse.
“There is no guidepost or criteria that the council is supposed to use in determining whether a natural disaster has actually occurred,” he said. “There is no requirement that ‘as authorized by village council’ relates to an actual natural disaster. It’s completely open-ended.”
He said the ordinance as written has the potential to become a political hot potato at a time when cool heads must prevail.
“I think the last thing you need if you’re a homeowner affected by some natural disaster or environmental impact is to be subject to the whims of a council that may change every two to four years.”
Coates said he supported the ordinance but would want staff to come back to the council with additional criteria on how it would be applied. He added that one of his concerns was what recourse the village would have if a windstorm were to blow down a barn that had not been properly maintained.
Stillings said that was why the provision is in the ordinance that the building official must inspect the structure and determine whether the damage was from the natural disaster.
Coates said they still need to determine what a sufficient natural disaster would be that triggers the ordinance.
Mayor Bob Margolis said he understood the concerns.
“I’m wondering if we should ask staff to go back and get the plain letter of the law from the state and do some research on other municipalities and other state agencies,” he said.
Councilman Matt Willhite pointed out that a tornado had destroyed a barn several years ago and the damage was limited to that barn, but it was clearly a natural disaster.
Vice Mayor John Greene was concerned about property owners abusing the ordinance by using the tent stalls longer than they really needed, or installing a tent that was bigger than their destroyed stall and renting out the space.
“I don’t see any language in here preventing them from exploiting an opportunity that if they have a six-stall barn and they put up a tent that allows them to stall eight, 10 or 12 horses and rent them for commercial uses,” he said.
Stillings said Greene was right and that staff had assumed that if the event were a natural disaster, there probably would be other impacts around the equestrian community and more concern about housing the horses than taking economic advantage. He said more specific language could be added regulating the size of the tents.
Schofield said it would probably take longer than two weeks to have a revised ordinance prepared, which means it will not be ready in time for the next council meeting.
Gerwig said she thought the ordinance had sufficient protection in that the building inspector must determine sufficient damage, and that adding “in parity with the loss” would prevent temporary tent abuse.
Coates made a motion to postpone the second reading of the ordinance to the council’s Sept. 9 meeting, which carried 4-1, with Gerwig dissenting.
