HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 12_4/11/1996 � Il
Our position re the "Minimum Standards Ordinance" is that it is, at best, prema-
ture. Tequesta town officials have, unwisely, put the "cart" way "ahead of the horse!"
Until property owners can examine and assess ALL EXISTING ("on the books") minimum
standard regulations, there is NO legitimate basis for discussion or consideration of
ADDITIONAL PROPOSED STANDARDS. Further, we do not believe that responsibility for
review of current standards rests with town officials. Property owners, rightfully, must
"advise and consent" to the applicability of current ordinances to their property before
being asked to endorse new ones.
Clear evidence of the Town's own inability to keep track of the myriad of existing
codes and regulations accumulated over the years can be vividly seen in the words of its
own "Disclaimer" that is stamped on all building permits issued to property owners.
Despite review of detailed plans submitted by the owner, and despite issuance of a
building permit, the Town via its Disclaimer returns responsibility for compliance to
the property owner for abiding by any and all applicable regulations. In other words, the
Tequesta Building Department is insufficiently aware of possible conflicts and redun-
dancy in the countless regulations to assume the responsibility it should rightfully
assume when it issues a permit.
Therefore, to avoid duplication of existing minimum standards as well as con-
flicts between existing and proposed standards, WE REQUEST THAT all current town
ordiusuccs relating to "minimum property standards" be codified and distributed to
Tequesta property owners for their review. "Summaries" of existing ordinances are un-
acceptable, since summaries can be misleading and can omit important information.
Regulations in their entirety are necessary to adequately assess their applicability to
current conditions, Review of existing ordinances MAY reveal the need to update, stream-
line, or even, remove obsolete and ambiguous ordinances, such that NO NEW ORDI-
NANCES MAY BE REQUIRED IF existing updated ones are properly enforced.
Regardless of the outcome of property owners' review, it is essential that this
step PRECEDE any discussion of the (so-called) "Minimum,Standards Ordinance" pro-
posed by the Town Council.
THEREFORE, WE REQUEST AGREEMENT BY THE TOWN COUNCIL THIS EVENING
11,1 TO CODIFY THE ABOVE-DESIRED DOCUMENTATION AND DISTRIBUTE IT TO PROP-
ERTY OWNERS, AND(2) TO REMOVE DISCUSSION OF THE "MINIMUM STANDARDS OR-
DINANCE" FROM THE CALENDAR AGENDA FOR THE 5/./96 TOWN COUNCIL NESTING
AND SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS UNTIL SUFFICIENT TIME HAS ELAPSED TO ADEQUATELY
CONSIDER EXISTING MINIMUM STANDARDS.
We see no point in spending the taxpayers money to advertise this proposed ordinance and
hold a public hearing. It would be premature.