1. Proposed Ordinance to Limit Time Extensions made to LPC
 
ORDINANCE NO. 011-2024:  An Ordinance Of The Town Council Of The Town Of Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, Amending The Town Code Of Ordinances At Chapter 54, Historical Preservation, At Article III, Certificate Of Appropriateness, Division 2, Procedures And Effect, Section 54-94, Duration Of Approval, Time Extension, Denial Of Application, Determination, Clarification, And Deferral, Subsections (1) And (2), By Providing For A Thirty-Day Administrative Extension Of The Duration Of Approval And Limiting The Number Of Time Extensions To One; Providing For Severability; Providing For The Repeal Of Ordinances In Conflict; Providing For Codification; And Providing An Effective Date.
I object to the proposed changes in wording and scope of the Permit Time Extensions ordinance, 012-2024.
While these changes are steps in the right direction, they fall short of correcting the gaps and loopholes in the current system. Those gaps and loopholes are regularly exploited by property owners and developers to the detriment of neighborhood residents. Over a four-year period, I have lived through and been subject to all the aggravation and inconvenience the current system allows. It needs to change.
Here are some of the shortcomings I find in the proposed ordinance:
The words “demonstrated good cause” are doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. What do they mean? What criteria should guide the Director in determining “good cause”? For example, could a three-strikes delay be used to justify an automatic administrative extension? Wouldn’t that negate the whole purpose of the three-strikes rule?
The neighborhood notification process is deeply flawed, with no accountability. Contractors claim they have notified neighbors, but there is no mechanism to confirm this. So neighbors are unable to voice their concerns to the Director. And the notification zone is too small. It should be increased to a 500-foot area & include the entire street. Major construction of the type we are seeing is a major source of noise and disruption to nearby property owners. They should know when that disruption might be continued.
“Up to one year” seems overly generous. If a building permit is issued for 18 months, for example, a one-year extension means a 70% increase in the disruption and noise of a project. What are the criteria to determine the duration of the extension?
The proposed language is all carrots & no sticks. What are the penalties applied that will incentivize contractors to meet their permit obligations on time?
Will the Town maintain a database, showing which contractors have been repeat offenders in failing to complete projects on time? Should the Town Council take this data into account when awarding future building permits?
I object to the proposed changes in wording and scope of the Permit Time Extensions ordinance, 012-2024.
While these changes are steps in the right direction, they fall short of correcting the gaps and loopholes in the current system. Those gaps and loopholes are regularly exploited by property owners and developers to the detriment of neighborhood residents. Over a four-year period, I have lived through and been subject to all the aggravation and inconvenience the current system allows. It needs to change.
Here are some of the shortcomings I find in the proposed ordinance:
The words “demonstrated good cause” are doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. What do they mean? What criteria should guide the Director in determining “good cause”? For example, could a three-strikes delay be used to justify an automatic administrative extension? Wouldn’t that negate the whole purpose of the three-strikes rule?
The neighborhood notification process is deeply flawed, with no accountability. Contractors claim they have notified neighbors, but there is no mechanism to confirm this. So neighbors are unable to voice their concerns to the Director. And the notification zone is too small. It should be increased to a 500-foot area & include the entire street. Major construction of the type we are seeing is a major source of noise and disruption to nearby property owners. They should know when that disruption might be continued.
“Up to one year” seems overly generous. If a building permit is issued for 18 months, for example, a one-year extension means a 70% increase in the disruption and noise of a project. What are the criteria to determine the duration of the extension?
The proposed language is all carrots & no sticks. What are the penalties applied that will incentivize contractors to meet their permit obligations on time?
Will the Town maintain a database, showing which contractors have been repeat offenders in failing to complete projects on time? Should the Town Council take this data into account when awarding future building permits?
David A.Kelso
255 Monterey Road