Village Council - Regular Meeting

We call the meeting to order. What are we doing? Where's the thing? This is our workshop March 23rd, 9 a.m. Will you call the roll of the members, please?

Council Member Del Prado?

Yeah, yeah.

Council Member Del Prado? Here. Council Member Greenberg? Here. Council Member Meyer?

Here.

Vice Mayor Furman?

Here.

Mayor Cardino?

I'm here.

Mayor Acora Espresso?

All right, we'll do the Pledge of Allegiance. All right, back to it, the land development regulations. Who wants to start?

All right. Our MC is back. Last we left this, we were on page 76 and 77.

We haven't done one yet.

We haven't done the beginning yet. Right. No, we're going to go back to that.

Oh. Yeah. Okay. We're on page 76, correct? And if you just want to carry on from there.

We were going to finish what we were going to do and then circle back, no?

And then we'll circle back. Yeah, because we. Good.

The first 30 pages.

As long as we circle back.

So the last we had agreed to take out the Division 5.14 with the public telephones, and then we were getting into public right of way, there shall be no structure or planting on public right of way without an approved and issued public works permit.

That's just for clarification because the code already requires a permit from the Public Works Department for placement of any articles in the right-of-way.

I don't know if this is the time to discuss it, but it's an ongoing situation with residents where they want some kind of protection in the right of way. And I understand that we don't want any permanent obstructions, but we require them to maintain the right of way. Evidently, the sod and the soils that we're asking them to level create a problem for residents. And I just don't know what the solution is. But I think that probably everyone on this council has received a number of complaints about it.

Historically, I think people have wanted reflectors and semi-circular or semi-spherical concrete buttons. They've placed gravel in the right of way. and other things in the right-of-way for the benefit of their personal property. And that's conflicted oftentimes with the intent of the village to, you know, it interferes with stormwater drainage, it interferes with landscaping, and it creates, a lot of times you have permanent parking in the right-of-way, and that's something that we have been enforcing. It's not permitted. So...

What is the root cause for this problem? Why do residents have this problem to begin with? Do we know? What is it that we hear usually?

No, I think they see right of way adjacent to their property and they feel like, well, it's usable, it's accessible, it's available to me. And so they'll park vehicles there or they'll put things in the right of way to prevent landscapers and others from parking on their property. Simple as that. It's not widespread, but there are a number of code enforcement cases that we've had over the years.

I can tell you that some of the recurring issues is the delivery trucks that pull onto the swales and tear up people's swales. We've had an issue in the past with a lot of these little reflectors and they started popping up all over and council discussed whether or not to allow them and back then the discussion was no, this can start proliferating and it gets excessive so we basically took the position that when we see that, pick them out and put them on somebody's front door and say, you can't put these out. The buttons we allowed, but they had to be within a certain distance between. And we have allowed decorative landscape rocks, but far enough back that you can pull a car safely off the road. because the issue is anything that somebody can hit with their vehicle in the public right-of-way makes not just the adjacent homeowner liable, but also the village if we allow it. So this is where we've run into issues.

I guess my question, we still allow the buttons, right? This will still allow the buttons? We do allow the buttons. So that would be, I guess, a solution for residents. I think the greater concern is that that we require them to maintain the soil, but people park in it, and it gets ripped up, and then they have to plant new grass, and obviously that gets expensive, and it gets messy, but we continue to allow the buttons under this.

Correct. So we've had some conversation, I know, about the gravel, and I know that's not, at least as far as I know, that's going to be sort of an ongoing discussion, right? I've had a conversation with staff a bunch, and when I hear the arguments against it, it makes a ton of sense. But for example, there was a house that I think some of us are familiar with in my neighborhood that had gravel. He was told to remove it. When I spoke to the resident, he explained that part of the concern is just the way that corner is. It's by a narrow area, and people drive over, just will drive straight over the property, and yet he's still responsible for maintaining it. This weekend, we were leaving, and a truck just completely I'll use the word bulldoze. I went plowing through it. And I thought to myself, this is why I understand why there is some appeal to putting gravel in there. I'm not suggesting that we should just outright allow gravel, and I understand that's not I don't believe that's actually what we're discussing. But I think we do want to have, we should consider a mechanism for residents to seek an exception if they're on one of these interstate, either if it's been there for a really long time and done no harm. There are places it's been there, I think, for decades. Or situations like this one, where it's a one-way, It's not in one way, but the street narrows. It just lends itself to it. And I admit, I was initially, I still don't like the reflectors they had there and these giant buttons. But I think there may be tasteful things that fit with the aesthetic we want here that would protect residents. Because as Council Member Rapado points out, if we're going to be requiring people to maintain it, we may want to have some exceptions in place. Again, I don't know that that's for right this second.

We have a code enforcement case on that particular property. But so it's really a matter of it's a policy decision. What do you want to allow in the right of way right now? Buttons and trees and even low voltage lighting and sometimes low level landscaping are permitted. But when you get into gravel and parking and larger boulders and things like that creates an unsafe condition.

I agree, by the way, with the parking in the boulder. And again, I don't think we have to decide this right this second. Parking, I know we're going to talk about it. I completely agree. And I think the giant boulders, my concern is low voltage. What I saw this truck do, it would have just blown. And it was a delivery truck, but would have blown past lighting, would have blown past the buttons. Oh, worth discussing. I think it's separate from the parking condition we're talking about here.

I think that we actually need to defund. It sounds to me that the conversation should be about the root causes of these problems, why our neighbors are having these problems. And there's probably, it sounds, a multiple, long list of things that are happening that are leading to their right away getting messed up sometimes, whether it's a delivery truck or whether it's the properties that are adjacent to a school and the parents driving their kids to school from a distance and parking a block or two blocks away from the school. And so until we have the conversation about the root causes, I think we're just dealing with the consequences of what may be behavior from drivers that are impacting the safety of our residents and making it just easy to be a reckless driver or easier or to continue to promote parents driving their kids on their private vehicle from a distance and parking three blocks from the school by just making it easier for them to park. Removing the grass and making it gravel whatever it is then I don't think it addresses the root cause of these problems And if if the say if it's about safety that we want to optimize our solutions for we owe ourselves a conversation about What's happening? What are the dynamics within our village that are generating these issues with residents are concerned about the right-of-way? And how do we deal with those causes? versus the consequences

I think the public works department has almost a solution. I think David says if you put down sand and then whatever. Soysia grass. Soysia grass, then it stops the, because the other stuff is just muck and it leaves deep ruts. The sand wouldn't do it. So maybe, I mean, I don't think gravel's the answer. Maybe this public works solution, sand and the zoysia are the answers to those questions. Maybe the solution is there.

In some cases where we see like repeated issues, we have public works has gone in and fixed the issue for them so that it's not always, you know, borne by the adjacent property owner. And on some corners, depending on the location, we could also consider putting curbing just to protect that edge of pavement. So we had to do that in a lot of places, for example, along 67th Avenue, because that was a constant issue there. So I think we look at it basically on a case by case. But if it's a repeat location, which sounds to be the case on the one that you're referring to, there might need to be a different solution that we have to look at it independently. Yeah?

And I think that particular one is being addressed. I just think, to me, it just highlighted it.

It happens, yeah. And with all these trucks, especially when you have the narrower roads, I think these large landscape trucks that come in and they just tear up. We used to have the same issue in front of Hector Lanz's house. We had to put curbing there on that corner because the same thing was happening there. They'd just plow over everything. I know on Kendall and 57th is another area where they destroy the swale there.

Maybe it's as easy as doing a flyer and translating it into Spanish for the landscapers because evidently, and I did have the same conversation, Mayor, with Mr. Mendez, and he said what's happening is the landscapers are planting the zoysia grass on mud. And so it just creates a soup. And so maybe we do instruction. Look, this is what we allow. Put it in sand. You'll have a better result.

Well, don't they have to get a permit to do that?

They have to get a permit, but I've seen as much as people just lay sod on top of sod and they start building up the swale, it becomes an issue, like it's whack-a-mole for us, we have to find it and then work with it.

Well, that's what my landscape, he just put more sod on the mud.

Right, which is not, yeah, it's not ideal. It did go away. Yeah, so...

By the way, we've created a very nice video that provides instruction and guidelines with regards to tree trimming that our landscapers are required to view before they get registered. Esther and our arborist and Adam and a lot of people have been involved in the production of that video.

So maybe we could do the same thing on the swale stuff, yeah. So, OK, we'll look at that.

Mr. Mayor, so a little contrarian point to this. It's the public right away. It's dangerous to have man-made objects right next to the edge of the road, buttons, rocks, reflectors. All that needs to go. It becomes an arms race to deflect somebody's problem to somebody else's yard. What the manager said is absolutely correct. We're a small enough village that if we have issues at specific locations where there's constant damage being done, public works should be able to look at that and come up with a solution if there is one. I know somebody that likes working out in the yard and I have people pull up in my swale, they sit there and park under the tree, they burn the grass, and I have a dead spot of grass for two weeks. and then it all grows back again. I'd rather they not do that. How long have you parked it? They just sit there for lunch and run their engines.

And it killed your grass?

Now, if we can outlaw gas-powered cars, but since we're not going to do that, I'd like them to park in my driveway. But that's just the way things are. It's unfortunate that some people are rude and they don't consider the damage they're doing. But to have... buttons and rocks on the edge of the road where you have people walking, biking, cars. It's there in part so cars can pull over if they need to. And it's a hazard. And I don't know how we allow some and not allow others. We should just clear the right-of-way as best we can and have public works deal with issues. Maybe the road isn't big enough. Maybe it does need a curb. Maybe it needs something else. Maybe they have the authority to say, put gravel here. That would be a better solution. I think that's the way to handle these. I'd be in favor of taking just about everything out of the right-of-way that people want to put right next to the road. Maybe if it's eight feet off the road or something, I'd be okay with that, but I think the edges of the road need to be clear.

By the way, the state legislature, it's my understanding, has passed a law prohibiting municipalities from prohibiting gas-powered leaf blowers.

Yeah, that is true. If that is enacted into law by the governor, we will not be able to enforce the current ordinance that bans gas-powered leaf blowers.

I wonder if I'll get any emails from my favorite persons.

Yeah, Crimea River, right?

I agree with Mr. Fairman, except in the fact that if we go in and start removing stuff, like if you were to go to my neighborhood and remove the gravel from everybody's swales. I mean, that stuff's been there for a long time. There will be an insurrection on our hands. So I would say, permit no new stuff, but almost create out of the old stuff.

Well, the gravel, to me, that's a different subject than putting cement features that stick up above the ground to block people. Gravel could be argued, and I'm not saying that gravel is necessarily a bad thing. I know you worry about gravel getting kicked out on the road. I'm just talking more about the buttons, the large rocks, the hedges, whatever people, the reflectors that they put right there on the edge of the road. I know we say maybe it's two feet off the edge of the road, but that's really not enough for people walking, riding a bike. It's just an accident waiting to happen, and it is the public right of way It's, yes, their responsibility, but it's all our responsibility. We all have yards, we all have stuff we have to tend to, and sometimes somebody does something that they shouldn't do, and they mess up our yard, and we gotta fix it. I don't know. May I just clarify, Mr.

Chair, that with respect to the gravel, we do not, to my knowledge, have a provision to grandfather-end gravel that is there, and code enforcement takes an active role in eradicating the gravel when people do put it in. And we've had recent complaints from people who did not want to remove their gravel and came before council to ask for some kind of waiver of that. And it was not granted.

So I think, you know, code enforcement uses discretion, but the problem with gravel is if people put gravel in the right of way, does that mean then we're going to permit them to park in the right of way? Because that's why they put the gravel there is to withstand the weight of the vehicles.

So yeah, we are actively taking gravel out of the public right-of-way. It's a proactive approach. If we see it, we do eradicate and fix that issue. So we may not have hit Devonwood yet, but.

Yeah, because you wait till November before you get to Devonwood. Okay.

I mean, why are we doing that? Why are we busting people's chops who've had gravel for 30-something years?

Because the code says we don't allow it.

The code doesn't specifically say we don't allow it.

Yes, it does. It says we do not allow anything except for sod in the public right-of-way.

And trees and buttons.

Trees and sod, right. Trees, sod, and plants.

We can change the rules. If you want to change the rules, then change the rules.

Right. So if you want to allow it, then... We can just do whatever makes sense from our perspective.

I think it's been working fairly well so far. We have had a couple of issues, and I think code enforcement does use discretion. And I think with the zoysia grass and the sand that is now becoming more and more popular, that obviates the need for gravel. But the whole question really is, I mean, do you want to encourage parking of vehicles in the right way?

Well, I mean, at least my sense on this is no. I mean, no. But there may be situations where the gravel serves a different purpose. I mean, I agree 100%. We don't want to have gravel in there as a mechanism for people to allow parking there. I think there may be circumstances, either because it's been there for so long or there are unique sets unique configurations where exceptions are advisable. I understand that that can be done through enforcement, and maybe that's the way to do it, but I think it's worth considering that. But I don't think anybody's suggesting we allow a free-for-all with gravel or that we allow it for parking. In fact, I think we need to cut down on parking, which I know is in here. I don't know what page we're on anymore, but it's somewhere in here. But I would suggest we, perhaps, to take some of the element of randomness that might be at least perceived, that we consider what circumstances we might allow exceptions to the gravel rule and construct it that way, which is gravel is not allowed, but. And I don't know that we need to do that in this go around right this second, but I just think it's something we should talk about.

I agree.

Including the part about not doing it this second?

Exactly. No, but I, because it's going to take an hour. Right. I think that it's something that we need to discuss, and it's an ongoing issue, and we just keep kicking the can down the road, and I don't think that we are uniformly enforcing it, and that's not fair to residents. So perhaps we carve out some clear parameters.

And by the way, more than it's going to take an hour, which I do agree. We uniformly enforce it. Part of why I say not to do it right now is I think we want to consider it. Well, no. Well, that too, but I also think we want to consider what makes the most sense, so we're not rushing that. That's all.

Yeah, it's about what sort of village we want. And it's about if you have a leaky bucket and you plug a hole, there's going to be more water coming out of the other hole. Right now, you're not hearing from all the residents that are being compliant with our regulations. If you lax them or you accommodate for some others that are currently not compliant with our regulations, then we're going to hear from those that are being compliant. They're going to pack this room and they're going to say, why did you hold us accountable to this when you're letting these other people sit on an exception? So you're not hearing their complaints because they're good citizens now. But you will hear them out if all of a sudden we start rewarding the people that are not behaving in a way that's complying with our code. So I agree it's a longer conversation, probably not the right conversation for right now because it's complex, but yeah, just gotta keep in mind that you're gonna hear from others if we start making exceptions to those that are not being compliant.

Yeah, so just so that council's aware, we had slowed down on enforcement because we weren't sure if there was gonna be a change to this in the land development regulations, but short of any action being taken by the council, We will be ramping back up to enforcement of all these issues. We give them time to bring it back into compliance. They're given sufficient time and solutions to bring it back into compliance.

So we have to take action now?

You don't need to take action now. I'm just letting you know we had stopped to see if there was any will on council to allow gravel. and if there is no clear direction from council that would allow gravel, then the existing law stands, which is sod, plants, and trees.

I think in certain circumstances there might be a need to allow gravel.

The question is, what are those circumstances? We would have to make clear determination. At one point we came and said, Council might consider within a certain radius of schools that we would allow it. And then that didn't go through. The solution to the school issue and the parking, the constant parking is we do allow hedge material to be put so long as it's kept low in the swale if you live within the school area where it's a constant issue where people are parking in your right of way. So that's how we solved for those people.

Don't you, in the school, in and around the school, you kind of need people to stop and park in the right of way, don't you? If you didn't have any parking whatsoever, and we're all complaining about traffic due to the schools, what are we gonna do?

That's why there's certain swales around the schools that we've been talking about improving and allowing parking, but then you have the offset of do you want to allow more cars or do you want to promote people coming to school on their bikes or whatever. So these are the push and pull of these issues. But if we want to keep it so that it's, you know, people aren't tearing up everybody's yards all over the school area, there's only so much you can do. Otherwise we allow parking in the right of way and you allow people to put gravel around the schools, which is what was happening like in Coral Gables. So people have to go through a permitting process in Coral Gables with the Public Works Department, but they do allow gravel within a certain radius of the schools. But like in Devonwood, that's not the issue. The issue in Devonwood is you have a lot of shade and so certain grasses won't grow. And so after a while, you just have whatever is there, weeds or whatever growing there. And I think that's why, right? They have a lot of gravel there.

A lot of it. This sounds to me like it's the beginning of the discussion, though. My takeaway from this wouldn't be that there's no interest on the council. I think that there's, at least my take is, there's no consensus, of course, because we don't know what we want to do yet. We want to examine it more, but I don't think... I know that we're not in charge of the enforcement, but to me, it sounds like there is still a discussion to have, so I wouldn't think it would make sense to ramp up the enforcement at the moment, because... We may end up not doing something, but it sounds like there's at least some interest in talking about it. I don't think now on day, whatever this is, 12 of these LDR workshops that right now we want to try to rush the decision, because to me that's how unfortunate decisions get made. But I would personally, and we can do it soon, I would want to have this discussion and not ramp up the enforcement yet.

If you want to defer enforcement on the existing situations, that's one thing, but I would recommend we enforce any new

I would say no new, I would suggest, yes, no new stuff at the very least. And I'm interested in figuring out a way, in certain circumstances, it's gonna make sense. What are those, perhaps it's around the schools, perhaps it's in areas where grass won't grow, or whatever, and just have a mechanism by which those people would be allowed.

Can get like an administrative variance of some sort, but we would have to have them go through a process. Yeah. so that it doesn't become all over.

So why don't we table Division 5.16, and then maybe staff can come up with some exceptions for us, and we can provide feedback on what we think. I don't know. But I agree with Councilmember Greenberg that it's a lot to get into the gravel discussion right now. So can we just table any changes to 5.16 right now?

There's another section that deals with gravel that we haven't got to yet. Can we table those two sections?

So you don't want to make the change that's already in there?

At what point is it appropriate to bring in our highly skilled and paid public works department who's got to handle all this stuff to get some of their opinions? I do like the idea of what you mentioned about Coral Gables, which is Again, I think we're a small enough village that if people have an issue, they can apply for a permit, Public Works can go check out the situation and see, determine the necessity of what people want to do.

If you're interested in having an administrative process, variance process, we can add language that basically gives staff that discretion and then we would be taking it on a case-by-case basis. And that's a solution that we can... You know, right here it talks about there shall be no structure planting or public right of way without approval of the issue public. We can literally add, you know, gravel surface in there. And that way, if somebody wants a gravel surface, they have to come and we would have to approve it. And if somebody is not happy with the administrative decision, they can always. appeal that administrative decision to the elected officials and then you guys can be the last, the final arbiters of a situation.

So if our public works department says, yes, that's a good idea. Fine. However, this is your responsibility on the upkeep and maintenance of it. Right. And if you can't do that, we're going to have you go take it out.

Correct.

I'm great with that. As am I. Same.

But you still don't want to allow parking, right? No parking, it's just...

Okay, so we'll add some language, Steve, that basically allows for an administrative permit. Okay, perfect.

Just as a point of process, if we're going to want to discuss things further, like the setback issue or this issue, when should we do that so they don't get lost?

Try to get through this as quickly as possible. We'll circle back because then there were some issues that were a little bit.

Right. So we're going to revisit some eventually, but I don't want them to get lost and never come back.

No, we got to come back.

But you want to add the administrative process now in this packet? Yes. Yeah, I think we agreed on that. Yeah.

All right. Okay.

On page 82, where it says time of placement and removal of receptacles, Council Member Greenberg and I had a discussion, and there's a small change, number 12, at the bottom of page 82. So it requires removal of trash receptacles within 24 hours after pickup. We're recommending that trash receptacles be removed on the same day as the scheduled pickup. so that they can be put out curbside no more than 24 hours before pickup, but then they shall be removed and brought back into the garage or wherever on the same day as scheduled pickup. Do we have a problem with this? No, by the way, I was saying I'd be fine.

Just to be clear, I would be fine leaving it as is, but if anybody wanted to change that, that's the most I would want to change.

Where is the change?

I'm sorry, I don't see anything.

Bottom. It's the third line on number 12.

If you want to leave it as is, that's the way I had it. I was under the impression that you wanted to. No, sorry.

I didn't want to change it any more than that. I'm fine with as it is or making it. I didn't want to make it. My concern was making it too harsh.

People complain about trash receptacles that are allowed to remain outside. It creates an unsightly condition. That's all. It becomes difficult to enforce, but you want to change it to where they can put it out no more than 24, leave that in, but then require them to remove it on the same day.

I'm trying to think of why anybody would just leave their trash can there.

Is that the problem, Esther? They just leave them out there all week, and they just keep filling it and leaving it there?

No, I can't believe that.

This is a very common complaint we get here. And our code now allows 24 hours before and 24 hours after. It's almost, if you allow it, people will actually keep their garbage containers out there for almost three days. And by that time, the next pickup is scheduled, and then we're still out there. So a lot of times people leave it out. We get complaints on this quite a bit. The 24 hours ahead is absolutely great. Just bring it in the same day that the garbage is picked up.

Yeah. I didn't think it was purposeful. I can see if somebody was leaving town and they put it out early or they left town and it's out.

You get this as repeat by all the time as well. I had no idea. Our code isn't.

You're going to have to make friends with your neighbors and ask one of them to bring it in. There's always a solution.

So would you recommend, would you be okay with striking within 24 hours after pickup and saying you move on the same day as the scheduled pickup?

What's the difference?

24 hours gives you an extra day past the day that you get picked up.

I think the code is fine as it is, honestly.

So leave it alone?

Yes. We've got to be careful. Okay.

I mean, are we really going to go around the day after trash pickup and write a bunch of citations that people haven't quite brought them in yet? I mean, I think by making them take it in the same day, put it in the code, then it allows us to look at the people that are... two, three, four days leaving it out there. Is that correct?

And it's not just a matter of enforcement. Once this becomes a rule, then you expect most people are going to comply with it.

I think most people probably comply with it anyhow. They go take their garbage out. Next day, they bring it back in. But a number of people apparently don't do that.

No, they're in compliance if they leave it 24 hours after pickup.

The repeat offenders get sent to special magistrates?

At this point, they don't until they get a notice to appear. So what would happen is every time we go, we would issue a CCR, co-compliance reminder. We tell them to do it immediately. But after that, unless it's out long enough, like maybe 24, 48 hours, we can't issue the notice to appear. So what we've also requested in here is we haven't gotten to it yet, is maybe if you guys are not comfortable with changing this, then we can do immediate citations instead from $50, starting at $50 instead. This got brought up because we do have an issue. We get quite a bit of complaints on the garbage containers. We get repeat violators. So we're just trying to put a little bit more enforcement on it so people will start.

So your suggestion is 24 hours?

24, leave it. You can bring it out 24 hours before. Just bring it in the same day. We're getting so many complaints that we actually had to add it to our suite board for the year.

Yeah.

If it makes it clear for code compliance to deal with it, I think it's a good idea.

Yeah, because I can't imagine. I mean, if there are people that literally really just keep their cans out on the street as a matter of convenience, then we probably won't stop. I just thought it was a vacation.

Please keep this in mind as we move forward. Code enforcement uses, as Steve said, we use discretion. We are not knocking at everybody's doors, but if we don't have it in the code when we need it, that becomes the issue. And then we spend a lot of time circling over and over and over. So it's not that we're going over the next day, just going door to door, making sure everybody's garbage, but it's just something that it helps code enforcement in its processes.

I would agree with Mr. Fairman. If it's something that helps them do their jobs better, I rarely get complaints about code enforcement.

I'm not seeing three people, though, so I need... Who's the third person?

I am the third person. If it comes from our team and that's a problem they get to deal with and it's really just a minor change to help when needed having to resort back to the code to enforce something, then I'm supportive of it.

Your concern was?

Yeah, my concern was that there had at one point been a proposal to make it 12 hours before and that concerned me because there's a lot of reasons, at least as I understood. Yeah, I don't want to change anything on the before end because I think there's a lot of reasons people need to leave it out there longer plus you don't know exactly when they're coming I think that requiring them to bring it back up same day, again, as long as it's enforced discretionarily.

And then on the enforcement side, if there's repeat offenders, we should be able to forego having to go to a special magistrate and just issue citations, especially for people that are repeat offenders. So why aren't we able to do that?

Thank you.

We just haven't gotten to it yet.

OK, all right. Since we're on the topic, the first thing that comes to my mind is that I think we have about 12% of seniors that live alone in this village. And that some may not be able to come out the same day and maybe over time become repeat offenders. And then now we're going to start issuing them citations. And like you've said, as long as we're reasonable, especially with those that don't have the means, because we can all take in and out our trash cans, but an 80-year-old person living alone may not be able to, right? And so they rely on a relative that comes by once a week or maybe twice a week. So as long as we keep those things in mind.

Understood.

Okay, so page 84, there's just some clarification that the construction fencing green screening can remain in place as long as there's a permit for new construction or remodeling under review. So they don't have to take the green screen down after demolition and then wait until they get a permit for construction to put it back up again. This just streamlines that process. And then over on page 85, we have requirements for a construction entrance. This comes from the public works director. So when there's new construction, there should be an entrance where all construction vehicles are going to enter and leave the site on a regular basis throughout construction. requires them to be treated with water to minimize dust. The next requirement is for a generator. We're allowing a generator on the side of the house provided that it's screened with a six foot high hedge before it was required to be placed behind the building on a corner lot behind the front, behind the side building line. This was a request of, uh, I think Doug craft and Harry hollow.

This goes back to the same issue of the storage of boats. When you live on a corner lot, you were like penalized because you couldn't have a boat next, you know, behind the front wall of your home on the side of the house. Same thing with the generators. If you happen to live on a corner lot, they wouldn't allow the generators on the side behind the front wall. Now this would allow it. Same as you would for other elements.

Steve, at the top of that page, number seven and eight, Can they use, because a lot of these houses are torn down, they have existing driveways, can they use the existing driveway as that means of construction egress?

I don't know why they couldn't as long as that driveway is still there.

Right, right. Typically they are, it's nice because if they have a paved approach they can dig up behind the approach to put in their gravel and you have less dirt and stuff being kicked out onto the road.

So should use paved approach, paved aprons if available?

Something like that. I do see a lot of them get torn up and they build another one somewhere else and it kind of makes no sense. And then who's going to make the call on when dust mitigation happens?

Public Works.

Who makes the call and when we mitigate the dust, we make them water down the site?

We usually do that on a complaint basis, but if we see that it's dusty, code enforcement or public works would enforce that. So the next item is something that Council Member Meyer recommended. It's, so, well, during the entire time of construction, contracts and their personnel shall be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the construction site. And then Council Member Meyer suggested we add in the neighboring public right-of-way adjacent to a cross-room and diagonally across from the construction site. So it's not just the right-of-way adjacent to the construction site, but it's the right-of-way in the vicinity of the construction project.

And this is coming from visiting a resident's home who complained about a construction site halfway through the block. She lives on the other side of the street and opposite from the construction site. And her right of way gets constantly messed up by either trucks from the construction company or the trucks are basically blocking half of the street. So the rest of traffic is needing to drive around the trucks and driving onto her soil and messing it up again. And so she needs to go back. repair it, and because construction sites and construction projects take long, at times maybe as long as two years, two and a half years for a new home to get built, one of these larger homes that we're seeing. It's unfair to expect that the homeowners that live around a neighboring property would have to keep up with a swale if it is mostly the damages generated by the construction that's taking place. So therefore, making those construction companies responsible for the upkeep is what I requested as a result of this.

I like this concept. I just have a question, whether it's Mitch or someone else, just legally in terms of the, because it says, because obviously the owner of a property is responsible for their upkeep of their own right of way. So in the scenario that Council Member Meyer lays out, if the house here is having construction, house across the street, the owner across the street is still responsible for their right of way. so my only concern is just is not in the concept but is in the wording because it almost sounds like it it absolves the original property owner of their responsibility for the right-of-way you could have situations where that property owner is doing something wrong or puts say that person puts one of these obstructions we don't like in there so i just wonder again i'm all for The concept. I just wonder if we should do some other than shall be responsible for because it concerns. The notion is they shall be responsible for, forget about this as the legal term, but the concept is they should be responsible for any damage they do. But the original person, so I don't know. I think we can tweak that with some level of wording, but I don't know what that is.

And we do function that way, even though it's not written. We have held up people's... Certificate of occupancy until they've fixed areas that they tore up, that they've done, and we've documented. And if we start seeing way too much parking along the swales and it's tearing everybody up, will go and speak to the project manager and ask that their construction crews park on property. So we can make a note on there just to clarify it a little further, so long as it's documented that they have caused the damage.

There's a distinction. This says during the entire time of construction, so it requires the the contractor to be responsible for the damage that the construction activity is causing.

So we would have to document that damage.

But I wonder, I'm sorry.

That we would have to document that the damage is being caused by the contractor in order to require that contractor to fix the issue. If it's just the person who's not maintaining their right of way and it's not, we can't correlate the construction activity with the lack of maintenance and the person has to maintain their right.

And I certainly don't want to over-lawyer this or meddle in it, but I wonder if we want to say, because Steve just used the phrase, I wonder if we want to say something like they should be responsible for, forget the precise wording, but avoiding and mitigating damage from the construction. Frankly, I think it would help us avoid a fight later on if someone says, well, this is their fault. Right. So I see what you're saying. Arising from their activity. Yeah, something like that.

So they're not required. They're not responsible for maintenance of the other person's public right of way. It's only they're responsible for repair of the damage that they might cause during construction.

I mean, I think that was the, I don't want to put words in your mouth. I think that's the intention. That's the intention.

I mean, the projects take two years long. During that time, there's trucks coming in and out, trucks blocking half of a street or maybe an entire lane when they're parked. And even though they may not supposed to do that, sometimes they'll do that, or vans with subcontractors. The traffic that's coming in the opposite direction, or maybe even coming in the direction of the blocked lane, has to go around. And at times, a rush hour, some cars will drive over a swale if they have to, to avoid being able to get through. All that's damage that's generated from construction, directly or indirectly. And it's not fair that the owners of those properties have to keep up with the maintenance of those swales. during that time period of two years. At some point, you're going to say, OK, you chose to build up this house. You're taking over this project. But with it comes an added element of maintenance, which is taking care of your neighbors and across the street and next to you. Make sure those wells are kept up throughout the two years, not at the end to get the certificate of occupancy, but rather throughout the entire time period of construction.

Yeah. We'll add some language that basically says that they are responsible. to avoid and mitigate damage from the construction and would be responsible for repairs when we document damages being caused because of the construction. I think that's the idea.

Can homeowners demand that contractors don't park in their swale?

No.

It's a public right of way. So what we end up going out there, if it's excessive, we will go out and ask that all their crews be parking on property if they can. And if it's a huge construction, we'll even ask them to have offsite parking for their work crews so that they don't have so many vehicles out there.

But aren't we separately addressing parking in the right-of-way as part of one of these?

Yes, but from a construction standpoint in particular, that's how we handle it, and it's worked so far.

Temporary parking by delivery people, construction personnel, et cetera, has always been allowed and continue to be permitted.

As long as it's temporary, it's just a permanency of it. OK.

You have a new division 5.22 Councilmember Greenberg and the Educational Advisory Committee and Esther and I had a meeting to discuss banners and I think the language in here meets with Councilmember Greenberg's approval.

What are you talking about? We're on page 84, 86.

We're at the bottom of page 85. 86 is a new division 5.22. Okay. You have that.

but that's the parking lot.

That's parking. That's parking. Required off-street parking.

There's a new section 5.22 that I gave to you this morning. It includes the revisions to the banners. I'm sorry, we're talking about parking. Yeah, no, banners are a different number. I'm confusing signage with parking. There's a new parking section, though, and we did add, and I apologize, I didn't. What we added was that shared parking shall be on the same site under the same ownership. And you have a letter from an attorney representing Sunnyland. Otherwise, I don't think there are any changes.

So I'm not understanding, Steve, there's a page, I guess it would be 86, right? Now there's no numbered pages, but you have the first page of the 5.22.

Yeah, we added that parking in the public right-of-ways will not be permitted. Just to clarify in the parking section.

But this relates to off-street parking for commercial purposes?

Or is all off-street parking? Temporary parking has always been allowed.

Mary, you have? I'm not understanding this.

Go ahead. Good morning, Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, members of the council. Good to be here. I think we've been following the conversation closely and are excited about the fact that you're modernizing parking standards. It's helpful to all the owners at Sunnyland Center. So we were just proposed for your consideration of even liberalizing the standard a little bit further to 250 per square foot. I think it was even beyond what one of our neighbors proposed at 180 square feet for parking. health and fitness users and consolidating the categories because functionally those studios and health fitness facilities are kind of the modern language of shopping centers and tenancies these days. The only concern we had really is just to clarify that we do have a private parking agreement. It allows for everyone to share in the use. We don't want it to be construed as allowing it to provide someone rights for vesting their zoning rights, because that would certainly result in one owner possibly cannibalizing the parking inventory of a neighbor, which is certainly not the intention of that agreement. So our clarification to 522R5 was to just make it expressly clear that these old agreements should not be deemed to satisfy your agreement requirements for shared parking application to a particular lot.

done is on the next to the last page and your handout, it says joint use of required non-residential parking spaces may occur where two or more uses on the same site under same ownership are able to share the same parking spaces because of their parking demands occur different times. two or more owners or operators of buildings or uses on the same site under the same ownership requiring off-street parking. The shared parking may be allowed to reduce the amount of required parking spaces in accordance with the following methodology. And that's the way we've always enforced it and applied it. And so this is for clarification and protection of the property owners that are limited to parking spaces. on their property.

And I mean, it's the same concept as we looked at before, is that we don't have an agreement with the property owners. They have agreements with each other. Correct. And so we don't force them to enter into those agreements. We allow them to enter into those agreements. So our hands are clean in that respect. That's correct. Okay, and that's good with you.

Just for the record, we're fine with that language. Okay. Thank you very much. Wonderful.

Thank you. Okay, so I think that's it for the parking.

Steve, while you're still there, Steve, item 14 on that uses list, the medical dental office or clinics, the 50,000 square feet under one one number of 200 square feet and 50,000 or more. Did that get settled out? Because that seemed to me kind of like an arbitrary pull a number out of a hat.

Jerry Proctor provided some data that shows that that came from an actual study, but you'll have a chance to review that again at first reading. He didn't just arbitrarily pick 5,000 square feet.

Would something like this be a case where you'd say the first so many thousand square feet are under one rule and then additional square footage, maybe a lesser number, and go that route as opposed to just having a hard cutoff that dramatic at 50,000?

You could. But I think what he's proposing here is based on a study that he did

We're getting in the habit of people giving us the studies on stuff they want us to approve. Right. I don't know if I'm comfortable with that. Again, this seems like a one-off. This one person wants this one thing, and we're just accepting it.

Did we review the study? I don't know, you were given a copy, and I can provide you with another copy, certainly.

No, no, I mean did the staff review, like the technical people review the study?

No, but I could tell you that it's, for the purposes of these businesses that are coming in, it doesn't serve them to give us numbers that won't work for them as they do things, because ultimately, They want to provide adequate parking for their needs on site. We know, for example, at the Baptist Medical Center, and we're talking specifically to these health establishments, you know, the medical type thing, the numbers worked there. In fact, you know.

They have excess parking.

They have excess parking there. Not a lot. But they do. But they do. So I wouldn't. I wouldn't necessarily be as concerned with the medical facilities in particular because they definitely don't want people walking far. You know, most people that are ill, they want to have comfortable parking at their establishments. I think where you run into bigger issues is when you look at like restaurant tours and that sort, because then it benefits them, right?

Would this have affected the Baptist facility south of Chick-fil-A?

No, because they had excess parking, so that one worked fine with this. And they're not 50,000 square feet at the Baptist, right? Baptist is like 36,000, so they fall under the original 200 square feet.

But the one for 250 may have worked for them.

If they were a larger facility, which is the case.

No, but at their 30,000, it may have worked for them, because they have excess parking.

Yes. They would have even more excess parking.

So that's what I'm wondering if, We got this data, but to the mayor's point, is it being really reviewed? Should we consider modifying it or double checking it or see if smaller properties could fall under that same rule? Does it have to be the 50,000?

I mean, we can have it reviewed, just take a look at, have the engineers.

Okay. I mean, not that we have a lot of opportunities for this to continue, but. Right.

We'll have them look at it and just make sure that they're okay with this recommendation.

And also, I think we had talked. I don't know if this is intended to be the edited version from that reflects the comments that we've made on some of these items. Is it or not? Yes. Okay. So there's a couple of things that I may be missing. One is we had discussed in this particular case that It may be in the best interest of our residents and our community overall that while we look at reestablishing the square feet requirements for parking, that nevertheless, we still expect that in an ideal scenario, the University of Miami would build underneath, not the parking around the building. This does not become yet another example along US 1 where people drive by Pinecrest, the only thing they see is cars in parking lots. And then we had said this is an opportunity to actually have them build underground the parking, maybe some parking around the building, but not the entire parking that's required. So that once and for all, we start changing a little bit of the landscape along US 1. And I'm not seeing that being reflected here.

They do have a large. four-story parking garage. It could go far, and it is gonna go underground by one story. And if we continue to implement these requirements, it would have to go, I think, an additional two stories. They don't think that's necessary. I understand what your point is, is to require parking underground.

The surface parking that they have outside of the garage is in the rear. It's not on US 1. So the orientation of their building is pushed closer to US 1. There's landscape park in the front. There's driveway and then all the parking is towards the rear. There's a large building that, you know, parking lot building that would be right on 132nd and then on the inside there's some surface parking, but the majority of the parking is in the structure.

Right, but I think the argument was we seem to be aligned with the flexibility with regards, or some of their proposals with regards to adjusting the square footage that's required per parking. but that we weren't necessarily, at least I know I had expressed, that that shouldn't, however, stop them from needing to build underneath, underground.

Right.

So that our community benefits from this as well, and we replace asphalt that currently exists for parking, for trees, and other things that help beautify US 1. Like you've said just now, Steve, if this adjustment, what it leads to is they're not going to do two floors underneath. They're only going to do one because now they meet their requirement. I'm a little bit uncomfortable with that. I would rather still have them build two floors underneath and however than just turn their whole space around the building green and deploy their savings in parking space to the outside. but keep the underneath build up. And I don't know why we would grant them that flexibility if at the end of the day, I don't know if it serves the best interests of our community to do so.

Yeah, I agree that it's more aesthetically appealing and attractive to have parking underground than it is on the surface. If we can force them to do that and you want to add that to the code, we can do it. There's going to be certainly some objection to that because it comes at a... far greater cost, but we can.

It comes out at a greater cost mostly because of the ground water. It becomes an issue of, you know, where they have to put in major, you know, flooding infrastructure because it's below the groundwater level, I believe, but I mean, If you all want that, we can definitely approach them to replace their surface parking lot and look at the option of putting it all in the structure and going even deeper.

I mean, do we think they're going to stop their project because we're requiring the two floors underneath? I don't think so. And if they did, then they can come back here and present their case for it. But otherwise, why not just take this as an opportunity to improve, you know, the aesthetics along US 1 for our village and for our residents?

We can make that comment during the review process. They just submitted plans last week, and we're in the process of reviewing those plans.

I think if you look at the Baptist property in particular, so they have parking... Even look at this property. We have parking underneath the building. It's a fairly, still not inexpensive, you have to put the building up, but it's a good use, good place to put parking space where it falls within the confines of the footprint of the building. I think when we get to digging into the ground to go deep to build parking levels, I think that's a, That's something that's a big engineering task and all depends on groundwater elevations and everything else. So I don't know if that's something that we actually, I don't see us being able to demand that. I think we can do it as a, it'd be nice to do, but I just think I'd rather promote raising the building and putting parking underneath it than making them dig down into the ground, because I think that brings up a whole other issues that we just don't understand the cost and the ramifications and the feasibility of all those things.

I would be fine with that. I mean, as long as, again, what used to be parking lot now becomes a nice little green space that people driving along US 1 see on the right, you know, driving north on US 1 versus a parking lot, which is what they see everywhere now.

But I did have a question while we're on these pages. Did we make a decision on car chargers and demanding car chargers?

I think the Village Council agreed that you weren't going to require charging stations level two charging stations anymore, but you're going to provide incentives for the fast chargers.

Okay, I just see it as still Council Member Fairman's recommendation, so I just wanted to see if that was correct.

Because that doesn't sound like a decision. So what is the incentive? We haven't developed them yet.

Okay. So we would build incentive. Where is that one? Number nine.

Let's see. How do I describe it?

It's the fourth to last page. Council Member Fairman recommends elimination of the requirement to provide electric vehicle charging station and to include an incentive to provide fast charging.

Yeah, right there to your left. Oh, yeah, got it. So we have consensus on that.

So the question is, do you want to do away with the requirement to have, firstly, with the requirement to have electric chargers? Or do you want to require fast chargers? Or do you want to incentivize fast chargers?

Mitch can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there's legislation that prohibits communities from requiring charging stations.

Any more?

The legislation has been passed. on zero emissions type goals. I don't think it would necessarily prohibit incentives.

No, it doesn't prohibit incentives.

It's just government expenditures or forcing non-governmental entities to expend money in furtherance of zero emission goals.

So my notes from the past meeting says remove requirements for bike racks, one bike for parking spaces, incentives for fast charging stations.

I'm good with incentivizing the staff. I mean, I think you can...

might want to put them in. Well, I think it's an economic decision by these property owners whether or not they feel bringing in those people is good for their business. Those people. Those people. These people.

Which I'm one of them. I would say that, yeah, instead of mandating it, if we incentivize it, if that's a priority of the council, but I'm fine with it.

I don't know whether that's something if you want to give credit for two spaces for every one supercharger, if that... I don't know how the incentive would work, but more I'm just thinking it's time to take this demanding they put in chargers out.

I agree.

Whatever we do with the, it can be discussed and voted on in the future about what kind of incentive we think is appropriate.

So you get two parking spaces for every fast charger? I wouldn't.

That's not an incentive I would be comfortable with. We should come up with an incentive. We can't just make one up here, right? And have it be effective.

It's okay. More parking spaces for you because you have the electric charger.

Yeah, I'm not wanting to make the incentive up right now.

Okay, we'll figure out what that incentive is. We've got to figure out what would be a good...

The village manager was suggesting that if a person provides a fast charging station, that instead of providing two parking spaces, they'd only be required to provide one for every fast charging station.

Right.

It sounds reasonable. Sounds good to me. But I think that's something to talk to.

The only other incentives you can provide a developer is that's valuable to them is density. So it's either parking or density, it's one or the other, because there really aren't any other, you're not gonna give them height, they're not gonna be able to go up. Well, I don't think, at least we haven't had the conversation of.

So some superchargers might give them some space credit, parking stall credit, which then helps them lease the property to somebody that might not quite qualify, right?

Potentially. I don't know what else you could possibly give them, for instance, if that's valuable to a developer other than parking or density. Those are the two things they want. Or height. So those are the three things that they want. So you're going to go, you get one fast charger, you're going to go up to the story? Yeah, right.

You get a lot of chargers. You'd have to say, if you gave us 100 fast chargers.

Do you really want that? That's what I'm saying.

No, this seems to relate to parking. I mean, it seems like a reasonable approach. I think other things we're going to want to talk down the road a bit about incentivizing to try to diversify and develop. But this one seems reasonable.

You're lowering. By doing that, you're basically limiting one parking space for every fast charger instead of requiring one. you would take away. That would be...

But I'm not suggesting we need to add that to take this away. We could take this away and add an incentive at some point in time when we've come up with a good idea that's been vetted.

We'll see what other... places might be doing and we can, yeah. All right, let's look at what other cities might be doing for incentivizing this kind of stuff. Okay. Before we move on, I'm just worried that

Some of the stuff that we had talked about, or unless it's, I'm just not seeing. You may have it somewhere here. But we had talked about eliminating the request for parking requirements for public parks, and that each project would be dealt with separately. I've got a note. But I don't know where that's being reflected in this revised version.

It's not. But I have a note here, public parks based on programming uses and needs as determined by the administrative official. That's the change we're going to make.

So you are going to add that to this section or to a different section?

No, to this section. I'm sorry, it's not in this revised draft. But there are a few things in that revised draft that have been added as requested by the village council. But I have my notes here, and it will be.

So for the table that says uses, there will be a section – that like a number 22? Or number 18 for public parks.

18 is restaurants, lounges, and public. It'll be between 17 and 18. Okay. And then it'll be renumbered.

Okay. So there'll be a new section in this table that talks specifically to public parks and allows the waiver of parking requirements and only assesses whatever parking is necessary depending on the programming that is anticipated for that park.

Correct.

Okay. Okay, are we done with this?

We're done with that. Yeah. Now if we go to page 104, hopefully, so there's a whole section on mobile food dispensing vehicles and temporary commercial kitchens. This is exactly the state legislation that allows food trucks under certain circumstances It allows them to supplement existing kitchen operations on the same property as the restaurant. And it also allows them during renovation repair or rebuilding on the premises. It allows them as well. All these other conditions come straight out of the state statutes. And I think we just wanted to clarify.

So what does this, how does this, what does this do? How is this different than what we have currently in our.

Food trucks are allowed now. with special event permits in parks and different places in conjunction with the special event permit. What this does is people are confusing the legislation. Oh, you guys are preempted. I can have a food truck. No, you can't. And it took a lot of painstaking explanation and code enforcement to get them to understand what the state statutes actually allow. There's even confusion, I think, amongst the attorneys and the planners and everybody else but we have carefully reviewed it. This is what the state statutes allow.

So how does this work? Just give us the layman's terms.

Well, it allows, so right now the village allows food trucks in conjunction with special events. If somebody wants to have a special event, a fair, a festival, and they want to have food trucks, not a problem.

This will allow...

But this just mirrors the state statute. But what does it say? It says that a temporary commercial kitchen may be used in conjunction with a permanent food service establishment for the purpose of supplementing the existing kitchen operations.

So you can only have a food truck associated with an existing restaurant.

Right.

And it has to have the same name.

Yes.

And it can only be temporary.

Yes.

So if their kitchen is down, then they can have a food truck set up. That's correct. Otherwise, no food trucks are allowed. That's right. Okay, that's what that means.

Okay, so for the, oh, go ahead. They're not allowed absent the permit process, where you can still have the temporary.

There's no food, no, here, so we don't, what this basically does is only allow food trucks if they're associated with an existing restaurant that's currently operating and has a CO. and they can set up on a temporary basis while their kitchen on property is out of order. Let's say you have a hurricane, right? And the kitchen can't work, but they wanna do a food truck and they're gonna just operate from the parking lot. We'll allow it if it's affiliated with an existing business. But random Joe Schmo can come and set up in a parking lot and start operating food trucks like they do in Doral.

But if we're having Oktoberfest, we can have an event. That's a special event permit. Got it.

And that would allow it because they would be able to come in for a special event.

And not just we the village. If a person wanted to have that, they could still do it. We would allow it as a special event. As a special event. OK. So that part of it doesn't change. Correct. OK.

So the only thing, what was happening was you were having these random trucks just driving by. Did you show up? No, no, no. At the tire place on 98th and US 1.

What do you do about those trucks that feed the construction workers?

Our code doesn't allow those, but we look the other way, right?

We've always allowed them, and we've never enforced. So when you have a construction site and somebody drives up and wants to sell the workers something to drink so they don't. We're still going to allow ice cream trucks? Yes.

Okay, we're still gonna allow Kona ice Just why do we have an ordinance or like why is it in our code that we wouldn't allow these Food trucks to come in that feed the workers and then not enforce it Why don't we just get rid of it from in the code? I mean, it's just like

Think if it's on the code, it's just a question of credibility and consistency I don't think anybody's ever objected to somebody coming to a construction site and Selling the construction workers lunch to eat if it is a problem It's always been permitted I think historically around the entire country.

But there was a reason why we had it. And it had to do with several years ago, there would be just random folks just driving up and down the streets just trying to sell food. It was becoming more like what you would see in an industrial area. So now, over time, because we don't allow it, what's ended up happening is they just come in and go straight to these construction sites, and then they leave. But that wasn't the case years ago. Now maybe it's time to get rid of this and just allow it.

I'm just saying, Mark, for a matter of credibility, if it's in the code, people

Where is that section?

It's not a big deal. I mean, there's 10,000 people.

All sales have to be conducted from an enclosed building other than the food truck regulations here. So it would potentially be prohibited, but it's never, ever been enforced in the village of Bankrest or Miami-Dade County.

But it is the same as the ice cream man. concept, right? I mean, it's...

But one thing is a nice payment, and another thing is, you know, I don't know, for argument's sake, an arepa person just, you know, coming over and just, you know, arepas. Oh, I see, yeah. That's where it started. They pull off the road and then they set up a little stand. I wish they would have an avenue. I wish we would have an avenue.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's true. If you want to take it out, it's easy enough. That brings back memories.

All right.

Do you want us to remove it from the code?

Remove what? The food trucks?

The food, you know, the... Mobile food trucks?

That's going to make it difficult, though, if you do. Because people, honestly, they come in and they say, you can't stop me from having a food truck. And you've got to go through. Leave it. OK, yeah, yeah. I'll leave it. OK. Anyway, next up is 6.1, landscape regulations. If you could. Which page?

108. What's DVH mean?

Diameter at breast height. Do we have that?

That abbreviation, you have to say it somewhere because I don't see it anywhere.

I think it's defined as well. Okay. So artificial turf, I know the mayor wants to discuss artificial turf, and I just would like to be able to say one thing or a couple of things. Artificial turf, people think it's not allowed. It is allowed. You can have as much artificial turf as you want, as much concrete as you want, as much roofed area as you want, as long as you meet certain parameters and other requirements. As long as a person's in the EU1 district, for example, maintaining 55% of the property as natural green space, they can have artificial turf. And it's not that it's prohibited. There are many homes in Pinecrest that have artificial turf. It's just that artificial, they can't go out in their backyard and say, okay, 55% green space. I meet the requirement. I don't like my backyard. I'm going to convert it to artificial turf. That's green space. It just doesn't count as natural green space. That's the only comment that I would make. And it's fine on a limited basis, I think. to carpet a yard in plastic carpeting is not good for the environment and not good for the microbiome and it kills all the bugs in the soil that birds and others depend on. But that's based on the research that we've done and based on our opinions. That having been said, if you want to allow more artificial turf, that's up to you.

Does it count as permeable space or does it sometimes count as permeable space and sometimes not?

David Mendez and his engineers do the stormwater calculations. It's his opinion that compacted lime rock, which is typically the base for the artificial turf, is not considered permeable. It might permeate through the first layer of the artificial turf, but then the base layer underneath is not permeable necessarily, unless it's been prepared to be that way. So generally, I would say no. But could it be engineered to be permeable? I think it could be.

So we'd have to have the proper amount of permeable space. If you do put artificial turf, you still have to have the proper amount of permeable space on your property and the proper amount of actual landscape green space, not green because artificial turf is green, but green because it's natural.

All right. The question is, can it be permanent and pervious at the same time? Or does the fact that it's permanent

eliminate the ability for it to percolate water they would just have to come up with a solution for the drainage that it would be displacing which there are solutions engineering solutions you could put a drain in your backyard professional athletic fields the water drains through so you can build it where it's permeable so it could count towards permeable space so that's possible but that would be possible it's not like building something else that

a pool deck, for instance, which it's impossible to make it permanent.

They would just have to engineer for it. Are you proposing, Mayor, that we allow artificial turf in lieu of green space? No.

No, I was just looking for the debate on this. So I just understood a little bit better what green space was, how much turf you could put in, just kind of the parameters around that. I felt for some reason we were being a little bit restrictive before.

I don't know if it's worth putting language that artificial turf is not green space.

I think that's clear. You can have it. You have to meet your green space requirements, right? Yeah.

The only complaints I've ever had about turf were people that had installed illegally huge entire backyards of turf, like it was a soccer field in somebody's yard off 67th Avenue. It was just insane.

It doesn't happen all the time. I mean, if there was going to be any change to this, I would. on the street, but...

It's allowed. It's just... Do you want to reduce the amount of green space that's required?

I don't see the public clamoring for something like this.

I just was interested in the debate. We allow it. It just has to fit within the other parameters.

That sounds good to me. Okay.

That all having been said, one of my most memorable times here at the Village of Pinecrest was... Particular variance request that came before the village council.

What what was what like me? What was that?

Was that that do you really what it was the soccer?

Oh the soccer field.

Yeah.

Oh really where the person used a drone and you know, oh my god.

No, that was a basketball.

That was a basketball. That's true.

Okay.

What page are we on 110? That was my zoning board here. Back on 110.

We're in the public.

Yes.

So we're just asking for larger street trees.

And then we're allowing spacing requirements, exceptions for native shade tolerant understory trees set between the larger trees. So in an instance where you have understory trees, maybe that, uh, minimum spacing requirement can be reduced. for the larger trees.

Right, so we're also allowing to spread out the trees. The trees that will be large trees, allow them to be spread out and not planted so close to each other. So close to each other, right.

That sounds good. And that's gonna now be an administrative official review, so when they put in the plans review, the planning team will look at that. Okay, commercial business zoning district, we're coming in with a larger tree overall. When they do redevelopment, they're not gonna be able to come in with smaller trees, right?

Yes. And then council member Meyer is requesting discussion of minimum distance between planted trees and edge of pavement. And he thinks that the minimum, what is it? Eight feet distance be reduced to calm traffic that if the trees were closer to the pavement, it would have the effect of calming traffic, slowing down traffic.

Just to clarify, this is not me saying I think. It's supported by research, plenty of research from traffic planners, urban planners, that the closer the trees are to the edge of the road, the safer the roads, the safer it is for also people that want to walk or bike or be on the sidewalk or on the public right-of-way, the swale in this case. And the research, I think, from what I've read is we usually found it on, it's empirical, so it's not a theory. And second, it is because it generates this tunnel effect, and it makes, naturally, drivers slow down. So I don't know why we would have a condition that basically establishes that trees can't be closer to the edge of payment than what we're recommending here.

Seven feet.

Yeah, seven feet. And I believe some of the arguments I've heard in the past come from the perspective of the village would be liable or there's a risk of lawsuits A car crashes into a tree because the tree just happened to be placed close to the... I don't know about that. I'd like to challenge that. I don't know if we have empirical proof where that's happened before, but you could argue the opposite, which is because we didn't allow for trees to be closer to the edge of pavement, cars are going faster at times than what they should, or the risk of a pedestrian or someone that's on the sidewalk or on the swale Increases therefore we did not do our very best to protect them and it also could be coming from the other side, too So why not just leverage the empirical research? Especially modern research that suggests that trees should be closer to bring safety more safety to our Residents and get cars to drive a little bit slower.

So it's currently what? What's the current? You're just pros gonna make it seven

No, maybe closer than that, I think, is the discussion that we're currently.

I'm not sure there is a standard right now, and I think the public works director.

The standard is eight right now.

Standard distance?

Standard distance from edge of pavement. It's an FDOT kind of standard.

Yeah, I wouldn't want to tinker with that, right? I mean, I don't think you're allowed to tinker.

Well, that's the discussion.

by professional standards.

Well, let's just clarify. Those standards were created in the 1950s for the most part. And they were created originally to facilitate the flow of traffic. They weren't created necessarily in protection of pedestrians and users of the public right away. And there's enough evidence, more modern evidence now, that those standards actually lead to more fatalities on the roads that do not have the trees closer to the edge of the road. So I think given our interlocal agreement and on the streets that we actually have authority to make these decisions, it's a discussion worth having. If we want to consider modern research or just implement research or practices that are 80 years old and think that that's in the best interest of our residents.

I agree, but I just wonder if it puts us in any legal jeopardy. Mitch, if we were to ignore DOT standard on our roads, would we get in any more trouble than if we didn't?

In terms of the proximity of trees to the driving area? You know, that's a very interesting question that I can't answer offhand, so I would want to look into that.

Because I was wondering if they would even permit, do they have to permit our stuff, or are we talking about things that we permit?

No, I mean, if it's street trees that we're installing, like let's say that we wanted to install them closer, I can think of like Coconut Grove obviously has trees that are right up against the edge of pavement. And like you were talking, when I went to Lake Tahoe, they put roads in between like woods and you have, you know, redwood trees right next to the paved surface. It definitely makes you want to go slower because you don't want to hit one of your, you know, rear view mirrors or whatever. So there's... There are standards that we currently follow. When we first planted trees in the village and we just staked trees, we were not staking them the traditional way where we would just put trees in a row. We were kind of meandering them. So even on 112th Street right now, there are trees that are as close as four feet to the edge of pavement. So it does happen that we have, because as the trunk gets wider and bigger, they start taking up more space. So the issue is that now, We've been using a more traditional way of installing street trees where we do put them in a row further back. And the question is, do we want to loosen that and maybe come in closer? And that's the discussion that he's asking. Do we want to consider allowing them to be closer than the eight feet, irrespective of the FDOT standard?

I think intuitively it makes sense, but we have discussed updating our transportation master plan, and I would really like to hear those recommendations, because I'm not comfortable legislating standards, particularly safety standards, absent an expert recommendation. And no disrespect to you, Council Member Meyer, I understand that you've researched the issue, but I'm sure there's arguments for and against it, and I would just like to understand what those are before we legislate a change.

Yeah, that's fine. As long as this is on the agenda.

Yeah, I think it's a good thing to consider.

And that our consultants that are going to be conducting our Safe Streets for All study include this in their assessment. And if their recommendation is that we keep eight feet from the edge of the road, I'd like to see the research that supports that and how recent of a research it is versus a standard that is 80 years old.

So in the meantime, should we remove this slide?

new language what is it what was it that it was before when approved street trees are planted trees must be set back a minimum of seven feet unless otherwise directed by administrative officials so this gives the the wiggle room no but you're saying remove if the idea is to go back to this status quo because we're going to consider this broadly, then you would... Then we would not have that in there.

But is it just, is there stuff in... That's the only location, I believe, where... Well, this seems to be, this seems to allow them to plant trees as close to the road as they want to, but seven feet minimum from a sidewalk. As I read it.

So the existing language... on page 111 in the center of the page. It says that street trees shall be placed within the swale area or shall be placed on private property where demonstrated to be necessary due to right-of-way obstructions as determined by the administrative official. Street trees planted along roadways shall be placed within seven feet of the edge of roadway pavement or where present at a minimum of seven feet from the sidewalk.

Right, so right now we could plant a tree two feet off the edge of the road.

No, I don't think so. I think this requires a seven foot distance already.

It says within seven feet of the edge of the road. Within two feet is within seven feet. Correct. One foot is within seven feet.

Correct.

It's seven feet from the sidewalk, which...

Right, so that it doesn't tear up the sidewalk.

And this is a good issue, and Council Member Meyer's correct. 60th Avenue was narrowed, but all the trees are far from it. It's still wide open. It really... Hasn't had much effect on speed, but you go into some of our back neighborhoods that have same narrow roads But there's a lot of trees parked close and it's a whole different feel and it does tend to make you slow down What I would be concerned about is just there is that root damage on the roadways And so you got to especially down here where the ground is so hard There's not deep topsoil that you may have in other parts of the country. So Roots start going right out into the road and then you have trip hazards, bicycle hazards, so I think if we do this, probably should decide on some sort of best planting practices that might keep us from damaging the roads, just like this language is trying to avoid damaging the sidewalks.

Yeah, so as Council Member Del Prado suggested, I'm okay that this is tabled until we've done the entire Safe Streets for All analysis. under the request that within the deliverable that this team provides, there's an opinion with regards to how close trees should be to the edge of the road with the pros and the cons, and that the council could then seriously consider as to whether we would adopt or not, or have a debate over. because otherwise what I worry is that we table all of these safety discussions pending the result of the study, and then the study does not address this particular item in specifics, and then we have another year of waiting until we've had the opportunity to debate this, right? And because it is a safety matter, we should not wait until there's an accident to react, especially if the research already suggests that the trees that are closer to the roads make everyone safer, including the drivers, because the drivers are safer if the cars slow down too. So as long as that deliverable includes an opinion on this matter, I'm okay with waiting. If it does not include an opinion on this matter, then we should just have it as a separate conversation sometime in the next few months.

Yeah, I don't disagree with you. My only concern was does this prevent us somehow the fatal flaw would be that if we have a project that we want to plant trees and we, for instance, if it was the shared use path on 88th Street and DOT said, no, you would not allow us to plant the trees in those locations, I wouldn't want to freeze the project that would not get a permit. But if it's something that we're in total control with and there's no and there's no ability to freeze a permit on us, then I wouldn't be for it because I happen to agree with your sentiments. I think it does slow things down and make things safer.

If you look at page 111, we were striking within seven feet from the sidewalk and putting at a minimum of seven feet from the sidewalk. Well, what happens if you don't have that? What if you can't accomplish it? I don't know that we should be changing that. I don't think we should change that. I think you should leave that alone because it leaves the discretion to staff on where a tree would go in relation to a sidewalk. Does this then mean if you don't have seven feet, then you can't put a tree in? I don't think we want to do that either. So I would not do that change. That would be my recommendation to council. is not do that.

I agree.

And that way, we have the flexibility. We do it within seven feet, and it's really our decision, administrative decision. And we put it where we feel it best works.

So if we're tabling this until as long as this is included in the deliverable, the safe streets for all, consultants, that they will have an opinion over the trees and their distance to the edge of the road, et cetera. Then the change that you're proposing here under section page 112, like K, section K, then that change would not take into effect and we'll leave our code as is. Basically, we don't have a requirement with regards to distance to the edge of the road, correct?

Right. So what we would do is just take this new language out and leave it as is until you make a decision in the future.

Yes. But I think, I mean, conceptually, it sounds like a very good idea.

We have that flexibility now. It's just... We have, the code allows us that flexibility. I think in practice we've been trying to avoid it.

Oh, wait a minute. So we can do this already?

We can. Like I said, we did it. We did it on 112th Street. We planted four feet from the edge of the pavement. We did it back in the day.

Okay. But to the code, so if you wanted to do it today, you could do it?

Technically, yes. Oh. We've just taken a position. further back. Why? For a couple reasons. One, because it is an FDOT standard, you want to be able to pull a car off the road if there's an issue. But you can also make an argument that if the trees are set far enough apart from each other, you could still safely get a car off onto the swale. Right. For maintenance purposes, now we're responsible for maintaining the trees that are in the arterial roads. And so the closer they are to the traveling, when you deal with all these vehicles that come in with their boats and stuff, we get a lot of complaints for pruning and those kinds of things. So I think it depends, right? Like if you were in the interior roads where there's a residential area that's lacking of trees, you could probably go closer because those roads tend to be slower and calmer. But when you get into the arterial roads and you go really close, I think you can potentially create an issue of maintenance for us.

Maintenance in the tree trimming maintenance? Correct.

the closer they are, it's just harder to get the tree high enough where you're clearing the trunks as it's growing to allow for the traders with the boats. These are the problems that we have in Pinecrest.

Right, that some of the boat maintenance companies will not come to local marinas to pick your boat up to service it. They make you, say, drive to Black Point Marina and pick your boat up there because they can't get in and out of Pinecrest and Coral Gables without smashing the top off your book.

And then they have to take it themselves, hence the affordability crisis in this country.

coming through our.

But honestly, like the arterial roads currently already have trees that are close to the edge of pavement. I think those are whatever existing kind of, I think it's more going forward to the areas that we're adding trees. Right.

I think the conversation is about making it a policy versus a discretion. And as Council Member Del Prado suggested, if we're going to consider a policy change, then let's wait until we get the results of the study.

Right.

Again, with the express caveat that it should be a section in that study as a deliverable. And if I get that commitment from the staff, then I think it's okay to wait until we have that study.

Yes.

Yes? Yes. Commitment. Okay.

Okay, on page 113, we have a requirement that three branches be maintained clear of pedestrian obstructions with a minimum of seven feet of clearance from grade.

Well, you don't want a person on a bicycle.

Yeah. We should go over the sidewalk? Is that what you're talking about? Yeah. Okay. Sidewalks. Yeah.

Yes. And then there's a section on tree houses. We talked about the tree house that we had in Pinecrest. It was really an engineered office or accessory structure up in the tree. It damaged the tree. It was never permitted. It wasn't inspected. They said, well, it's a tree house. We'll talk about this. We're not opposed to kids playing in trees, but we're trying to avoid a situation where a homeowner will contract with an architect and an engineer and construction company to build

If I'm not mistaken, I think we've talked about this already in our first session. We did.

And what was the decision?

That you were going to strike this out, I believe, and that we were going to... Sorry, I didn't take notes on that particular... But I remember you saying, I'm going to strike this out, and... there was and something else to avoid this issue that you were describing, which is somebody basically building a structure with electricity flowing in and AC and whatever. There's a limit. But I think our feedback was not so broad that it actually stops families from just building up an actual tree house for their kids. The last thing we wanted was another thing that restricts children's independence.

How did we handle it last time with the one that we had?

Well, we told them that... It needed a building permit and that was never going to get one because it didn't meet the requirements of the Florida building code. It was taken to the special magistrate. The special magistrate required them to remove it. Okay.

So we had a mechanism to deal with those anomalies. We did.

Right, but if this comes out, do we lose that mechanism?

No.

Also, that structure didn't meet the setback requirements.

Right. So I would just recommend taking this out.

OK, perfect.

OK. Tree pruning has to be done in accordance with the NCA 300 standards. Is this already a requirement?

Because if you mow close to the slash pines, you end up killing the pines. So you definitely want pines to have either mulch around them, where you don't have to come in and mow, and or understory like saw palmetto or something that protects the slash pines. All right. So 116 had the same thing, just restating the pruning standards. OK, so this excessively raised is like this new thing where they come in. They just did it to my tree in front of my house. And they just go to their trees. they keep, people don't want the trees to spread out like a normal tree would, and so they come in and they start making the tree, forcing the tree to go in a, like up, and it's improper pruning at that point. So we wanted to get that to stop. Fronting, that's specifically exempted below. So tree removal, tree removal is required for removal on the right-of-way. Is it fronting or adjacent to private property?

Adjacent to.

Yeah, it shouldn't just be fronting. It should say adjacent. So people were coming in and just removing street trees and not asking permission when we would get there and the street tree was gone. Okay. Okay.

Then we on the next page we've basically just clarified the names of these trees Corrected Already existing.

Yes, okay And then 119 plantings used to satisfy require street mitigation diameter replacement canopy coverage or minimum landscape standard shall not be arranged or maintained as a hedge any grouping of trees So they can't come in and put in a green button wood to comply with their tree requirement and then cut the green button wood and keep it like a hedge as opposed to a tree. If it's meant to be a tree, it needs to be a tree.

Sneaky, sneaky.

Yeah.

Can I ask you a question just on this? Is there anywhere a proposed requirement that adds the Latin names to the names of the trees as are otherwise known when they submit landscaping plans?

The code does require that those scientific names be

Yeah, it should be scientific.

And the reason for that is you may have several different varieties of ficus trees. For example, some are invasive and some are not. And so we're asking... We're not asking for any change. It is a current requirement.

Okay. And it is because a tree may carry the same common name, but different scientific names, one of them being... one that's accepted and native kind and the other one not. And is our list, when there is something classified as invasive by the state of Florida, and yet we do not classify that as invasive, what would be the... what is the justifiable reason? Something that's considered native for the state of Florida and non-native for the state of Florida that we would otherwise consider. Not native, but accepted. And I say this out of my own personal example. There was a tree on my house that we had to take down. It was considered invasive by Florida, but not by Pinecrest, so I have to mitigate for it. But I was just curious why, if it's invasive for one.

Did the county have it listed as invasive? Do you know? Or at what level of invasive? Did the county have it listed? Do you know? I don't know. I don't remember the name.

But I do remember it was invasive for Florida, but not invasive for us.

You want to address that?

DNL is working toward becoming an arborist. And she reviews a lot of our tree removal permits.

Daniela Diaz, I'm the zoning inspector here in Pinecrest. I also do plan review mainly focusing on the landscape. Mainly the reason why we don't include a lot of them that are on the invasive list for Florida is simply because it changes often. The Florida Invasive Species Council routinely updates the trees that are considered invasive maybe every two years or so. so we constantly have to keep up with it and it's really basically that we would need to put it in our code. So it's not that we don't have it in our code for any reasons, just it needs to be updated routinely. Sometimes the council removes some trees when it's no longer considered invasive, and sometimes they add new ones. There have been maybe two or three have been added in the most recent invasive species list here in Florida, including some shrubs and hedges as well. So if there are any trees that are in the Florida invasive species, we can include them in our prohibited list if you decide.

Okay, so if it's considered by the state of Florida invasive, we think it should also be considered invasive to our standards? Or are there circumstances where Florida may catalog something as invasive, but we disagree and we say no, and we'll allow it here in Pinecrest?

Correct, and you can also be a little more selective because there are certain species of trees that are invasive in Florida, but not necessarily in the south of Florida. So maybe one tree that's invasive in the north or in central Florida may not be invasive in subtropical environments.

Are we required to remove invasive trees on the weather? No.

We are not. The village, for the purposes of our street tree plantings, obviously don't want to go and put something like that. We try to stay native and diversify as much as we can, but with a limited number of trees. Got it. Thank you. The ones that you're seeing here are the ones that are most egregious and create an issue for the environment. Okay. Any questions on page 119 or 120?

What is the bottom change? Is there a wire mesh or other sturdy materials?

It's a protection when you're doing construction and make sure that the trees that are not to be removed will be protected from the construction. During construction, got it. In a certain way. Okay.

The others are pretty straightforward.

Let me ask about this. I'm reading it since I've done tree protection. Why not the vinyl orange safety fence that's attached to a wooden frame or a metal frame structure around the tree?

I don't think it's sturdy enough.

Yeah, it usually gets damaged very easily and then it stops serving its purpose. They come down very easily. So we've made it where they need to put the stakes in the ground and then the wire mesh, which is a sturdier long-term protection.

It just says wire mesh or other sturdy materials attached to wood, plastic, metal posts shall remain upright. Position vinyl orange safety mesh is not an acceptable protective tree barriers because it's just too flexible flimsy and Doesn't hold up in our experience.

Well, I'm gonna argue a little bit about this so if I build a Wood structure around it and I line it with that orange safety fence which is nice because it's orange safety fence and you can see it and I don't know if wire mesh stops a runaway, I don't know if anything stops a runaway backhoe from running into a tree. So this whole idea of the tree protection is to, have people don't pull up and park their roller or their excavator right up against a tree or stack materials right up against a tree. It's not really a guardrail type structure that's gonna prevent a tree from getting hit.

I think the issue here was just that they start to look a little rowdy after a while.

Well, that's the framing of it, right? It's not that the... The material. It's not that the orange safety fence, I think orange safety fence actually does a very good job if it's put on something that's structurally sound. I don't know how you code that up.

Well, they already require the structure. So it says... or other sturdy materials attached to wood, plastic, or metal posts. And if you want to allow the vinyl safety.

So just strike the vinyl orange safety mesh is not an acceptable.

And just require it to be fastened to a structurally sound.

Yeah, I'm just trying to think about what kind of wire mesh would be a better tree protector. That could look ratty, too, if it's not installed on something that's

What was happening with the orange safety mesh is people were just wrapping the trees in it and it wasn't really...

Right, so they weren't framing it up nicely. They weren't framing it. Okay, so I don't think there's anything wrong with the orange safety fence.

It's orange for a reason. The final orange safety fence does not take out that sentence. But it will allow it, but it needs to be set on a sturdy frame.

Yeah, you've got to build a framework that...

Right. Page 123.

Everything here, I think, is pretty straightforward. On page 125, there's a restriction here. Landscapers are prohibited from using metal blade trimmers within the right-of-way. I think that came from David Mendez. Which one? 25. Page 125, paragraph H. What's the alternative to that? String trimmer.

So what happens is you go along the edge of asphalt pavement because asphalt is laterally is kind of weak. So you get an exposed edge of asphalt, it crumbles. If you run the blade, metal blade down it, you start chipping away the asphalt and it eats into it. So you use a string trimmer.

I know, but now we have to police the landscapers. I would not do this. Honestly, because we don't have the staff to be chasing down landscapers if they're using an edger.

The gas leaf floors. Well, you have all the time of the leaf floors on your hands.

Right, now we don't have a leaf blower situation, but now we're going to be chasing after them.

But that's David's concern, and I agree with him. I mean, they, a lot of times, especially, I think it is an issue along the roads, because a lot of times the landscapers, much like they overblow a yard, they over-edge a yard. It's just, it's like, whether it needs it or not, they grab the edger, and somebody runs, and that every week starts taking a tool on the edge of the pavement, so... whether how enforceable it is, but it's nice to be able to tell them to stop and say that there's a reason for it.

The reasoning makes sense. I mean, my concern is we're going to be getting rid of the leaf blower thing because we have to, and now we're going to have it. Is this going to be another one that's going to

I guess if there's a problem area and we want to be able to enforce, it's better to have something than not, I suppose. But I wouldn't go around and ask that staff be out there looking for landscapers that are using.

Only if they're wearing masks. And then is this going to be the same thing where it's going to be a responsibility? I mean, I get it where we can tell people, where we're able to tell people, even with some controversy, that you're responsible if your person's using a gas leaf blower, because most people can tell. I mean, I didn't even know what this issue was until just now. So I mean, it's not like we're going to go out there and watch what our people are doing. So if this is going to potentially carry liability to the homeowner, I don't think it's a road we really want to go down.

But I don't feel that strongly. It just concerns me. There's no reason not to have it, in my view. It's just like you said, if there's an area that the road's being chewed up, we can take care of it.

Yeah, we're not going to be chasing after landscapers that are using metal. We just, we don't have that kind of.

But then if we're saying it's prohibited, I mean, it goes to the question that Council Member Meyer asked earlier about other things. If you have it in there, we're not going to do anything with that. Is there another way to word it and just say, I mean, and I don't know, I'm asking.

Maybe they should take care not to damage the da-da-da-da-da as opposed to.

Well, by having this like this, it's...

Instead of having it that they can't use it, we should say landscapers are not allowed to damage the roadway, whatever, edge of pavement or something like that. And that way, if we see that happening, we deal with it. But as opposed to prohibiting them from using a tool that's commonly used in the trade.

Say landscapers will take care not to damage the... It's our infrastructure.

If we don't want to protect it, I mean, it's... I don't know. I don't know if it stops people from using metal blades, but they also... Most of these long guys have the string trimmers. They use it for... what you use a string trimmer for. You have to kind of turn it to its side, and you run that along the edge of the road, and you get the overgrown grass.

How about we just say, landscapers shall use string trimmers on the edge of pavement.

I was thinking that same thing as Kim was giving the explanation. I wonder if it accomplishes it. It says the same thing without having a prohibition that people are going to get.

OK, so the landscapers shall use string trimmers or whatever on the public right of way.

I got a good one. Yeah, I see these landscape guys just blowing leaves off one property onto... That's already not allowed by the village. Oh, it's not?

Yeah.

Dude, I can take pictures of it. It's not allowed. It just happens.

Yeah. So annoying. They're not allowed to do that. And they take it and put it into the drainage structure.

Yeah, right. So when it goes into... I mean, if we had more drainage structures, I'd really push the issue because you can really cause a storm drain.

There's something that prohibits that already.

Could we just outlaw leaf blowers completely and encourage leaf suckers?

Because you really want leaf suckers, not blowers. I'm on my – yeah, I'm all for it. I'm good with it. I would do that.

Is there such a thing? Commercial grade? Oh, sure. Commercial grade? Sure. Leaf suckers?

Oh, yeah.

They're like giant, they're like big blowers, but in reverse. And are they gas or electric?

Not kidding.

They would be gas. Gas? OK. For the time being, isn't it? Probably quieter than a blower by a little bit, because a lot of the noise goes into the collection bag.

Well, I should get out of the bag.

Mr. Chair, may I?

I apologize, Mitch. But since we're on this topic, I realize we've been preempted by the state as far as the leaf blowers. May I, however, still encourage us to continue to educate the public on the harms of using gas-powered leaf blowers? So now it's up to the homeowners to decide. But if they knew that the people are doing their work at their homes using gas-powered leaf blowers, you're actually setting them up for a future health problem. Still, the noise levels that you can these days do the landscape and work with an electric or a battery leaf blower and your landscaping guy does not need to charge you more because there's ways to do it at the same cost, et cetera. Can we still maintain our education campaign directed at homeowners so that at least they're doing this in good conscience every time they're letting their crews use a gas powered leaf blower?

I don't think that's been preempted, but I'm going to double check, because there is an additional law. And by the way, nothing's been signed into law yet. So we are assuming that things that pass both houses will be signed into law. But I will say that this governor has, on at least one or two occasions, preempted some. Sorry. vetoed some preemptive laws in favor of local choice on certain things. So we don't know yet. There is, of course, the leaf blower preemption. There is also a preemption that would disallow local governments, and I mentioned earlier, local governments from spending public money in pursuit of zero emissions types of outcomes. I just want to make sure that the public education, to the extent it requires expenditure of public funds, would not run afoul of that separate preemption.

But of course, we passed this legislation because of the noise ordinance.

Well, noise is another. And I have that question, which is, could you enforce a noise ordinance that effectively prevents the use of gas powered without mentioning them specifically, and that we'll have to look into if that's something that the village is interested in. If it refers solely to the decibel level of the activity, and that activity exceeds the legal, our legal decibel level, then presumably we could enforce the noise ordinance to stop the activity.

It wouldn't be specific.

An electric leaf blower that exceeds the noise level would be as illegal as a gas powered leaf blower. Moreover, other equipment that exceeds the noise level would also be subject to enforcement and it's important that we enforce everything regardless of the source of the noise so that we don't run afoul of any preemptions. But that would be one option that presumably continues to be available to the village. Mr. Chair, may I just on a different subject? I had previously advised the council, I believe, or I had been of the understanding that several members of the council would not be able to proceed past noon, which is the case for me. If the council anticipates proceeding past noon, I'd like to get somebody, one of my colleagues, to take over at noon.

What do you guys think? We...

We have 40 pages to go and our track record