Wellington’s Planning, Zoning & Adjustment Board supported a plan Monday that would ease rules regarding commercial vehicle parking in multifamily residential areas.
Wellington Growth Management Director Bob Basehart presented an ordinance changing how the code regulates the parking of commercial vehicles.
Currently, one commercial vehicle can be parked per property, as long as it is screened from view of the street or adjoining properties, Basehart said, pointing out that commercial vehicles must be licensed.
With limitations, the proposed amendment would allow commercial vehicles to be parked at multifamily properties that do not have garages available for screening, since it’s typically not possible to put those vehicles out of sight.
“It is a fairly prevalent problem,” Basehart said, citing a study of violations showing that Wellington averages 300 cases a year, with 35 to 40 currently in the code enforcement process. “About 15 percent of the violations that are issued are as a result of neighbor complaints. The balance are found by our code enforcement staff. Virtually all of the violations are in the urbanized area. There is very little instance of these types of violations going on in the equestrian overlay area.”
Landlords have complained about an inability to rent in multifamily neighborhoods because of the lack of out-of-sight parking, and want to expand their tenant base.
“These are people who have good-paying jobs,” Basehart said. “They’re good tenants, but they can’t locate in some of the areas that we’re talking about because of the fact that they have these take-home vehicles. It’s part of their job.”
Staff suggested relaxing the code and providing specific restrictions: one vehicle per lot on multifamily residential without garages as long as the vehicle is rated at a three-quarters ton maximum, is no taller than 8 feet high, no longer than 20 feet, and equipment and supplies are covered.
Board Member Elizabeth Mariaca requested to adjust the language elsewhere in the code limiting how long a service vehicle can be at a residence.
“If we obviously feel that we have to police that, let’s be more reasonable. I find that restrictive. If we can remove it, I’m OK with that, too. The groomer is not staying the night. I think the hour is restrictive; it’s kind of silly,” she said.
Basehart agreed, saying that it was a reasonable suggestion and that an adjustment can be made.
Mariaca made a motion to approve the amendment, which was seconded by Board Member Paul Adams. The amendment passed 4-2, with board members George Unger and Andrew Carduner dissenting.
In other business:
• The board approved an ordinance authorizing the suspension of processing or review of land development proceedings on properties with outstanding fines or liens.
Strategic Planning Director Tim Stillings explained that the ordinance would alter one paragraph and add another. For instances where a property is in violation of a Wellington code, the text amendment allows for staff to suspend or deem ineligible applications for development permits until the outstanding violation has been closed and any liens or fines have been paid.
Historically, property owners have been allowed to apply for development permits regardless of whether there are open code violations and unresolved fines or liens. The amendment restricts the accumulation of violations while proceeding with development and is intended to provide a tool for increasing code compliance, Stillings explained.
However, some board members did not like the idea. “How is it that you really expect this language to do much of anything if it’s really just a few cases throughout the year?” Board Member Kenneth Kopp asked.
Board Member Michael Drahos asked what the driving force is behind the amendment and what sort of impact it would have on residents of Wellington.
“We have an issue with certain properties that have ongoing violations that continue to come forward for development approvals of various types and feel that it’s in the village’s interest to have those violations resolved before considering any additional modifications to their approved plans or sites,” Stillings explained. “We do have certain residents who are very interested in code violations and want to make sure that all property owners, regardless of whether they are small or large, are complying with the rules of the village.”
Basehart said that the change would add more teeth to the code process.
“The small violator has to pay his fines because of the process, whereas the larger violator, the serial violator, just considers it the cost of doing business,” he said. “The small man is hurt because he has to obey the law, he has to pay the violations, whereas the corporation does not.”
Adams made a motion to approve the amendment, which passed 4-2 with Drahos and Kopp opposed.
• Finally, the board also approved an ordinance creating a “reasonable accommodation” policy in establishing procedures for individuals with disabilities regarding land development regulations.
A “reasonable accommodation” is an established method that allows an individual who is disabled to request the modification or alteration of a specific code provision, rule, policy or practice.
“Currently, we do not have an ordinance on our books, or a process, for considering reasonable accommodations,” Village Attorney Laurie Cohen said. “So we have put forward an ordinance that would allow staff to review accommodations for individuals with disabilities on a case-by-case basis.”
Drahos made a motion to approve the ordinance, which passed unanimously.
Can anyone remember when rundown townhomes in these multifamily areas were bought up and refurbished (at Wellington taxpayers’ expense) with the Wellington staff’s PROMISE that police, fire fighters and teachers would be clamoring to buy an affordable home in Wellington?
It took forever to find buyers for the townhomes and the Village residents were saddled with the costs for years. And what profit was made?
These multifamily areas are already a rundown area with constant code violations and crime. Having unsightly commercial vehicles parked in the already crowded parking drives will contribute more to a poor aesthetic in these areas and tempt criminals.
Urge local officials to work out a deal with nearby shopping centers to have an area for commercial vehicles (and workers’ personal vehicles) to be parked rather than in an already compromised troubled multifamilly area.
This proposal by Wellington staff is loosening the Village code as a ‘solution’ to the ongoing ‘problems’ with people who live in these areas and the criminals who prey on them. Allowing commercial vehicles will contribute to MORE theft calls (and perhaps even cause the worker to leave the area due to these theft). In addition, a chaotic, unsightly visual presentation is created in an already rundown area (Mr. Schofield did you take Mr. Greene on a tour of the island of Palm Beach to show him worse looking areas than Wellington has? You promised Greene you would).
It is also guaranteed that once commercial vehicles are allowed in multifamily areas; that soon the quickly aging, older single family areas in Wellington will soon be nominated by staff to allow commercial vehicle parking. It WILL creep into other areas of Wellington as staff’s ‘solution’ to a crime problem.
Please do not loosen the standards in Wellington even in the multifamily areas! RAISE STANDARDS!