Conditions
At last night’s Stuart Commission meeting, the problem with approving projects with conditions was front and center. This came up because of a restaurant project on Seminole Street seeking commission approval.
Robin Cartwright spoke about approving projects with conditions earlier. She is someone with whom I seldom agree on development matters, but she made a good point about the enforcement of conditions placed on projects during the approval process. Her point was that there is very little enforcement. There are various reasons, but the bottom line is that no one has come up with a good way of tracking them.
Conditions can be placed on projects that are not built as of right when they are approved by the commission. Stuart’s projects are much more likely to need commission approval than in other places. That sets up the applicant to have the project approved by the advisory boards recommending conditions and then the commission itself either sticking with the recommendations or rejecting them.
The commission often places their own conditions on the project that becomes part of the final approval. In the development order that has been passed, a myriad of these conditions can be what the developer lives with to build his project. But is it?
Two years after approval when the project receives its certificate of occupancy, does anyone remember that the approval was conditioned on the owner doing or not doing something? How does code enforcement know what to look at several years later? I don’t believe there is any tickler system to remind the city.
How often does an inspection reveal that the 60-seat restaurant has turned into an 80-seat one. Remember parking, fire code, and a host of other calculations were based on that lower number. The smart applicant agrees and then, years later, waits for someone to dig up the approval if there is a complaint. Though recently a restaurant did receive a violation for having more tables than are allowed.
A real vexing problem is outdoor music. It has been my experience that trying to enforce it as a noise violation is impossible. For years now, I have been unable to enjoy my back porch on weekend nights, or sleep with open windows during the winter months because a mile away the music from Sailor’s Return is wailing away.
In the early years I would call the police and I would have a sympathetic ear but not much else. I stopped calling the police. They had a machine to calculate the decibel level, but it is very complicated to prove that the machine is properly calibrated, the officer knows how to use it, and other technicalities. It isn’t just me, but a rash of other people throughout the city have had similar problems because of different venues. My doors and windows are closed once the music begins.
While the enforcement of the sound ordinance is handled by Stuart PD, most other conditions are enforced by Code Enforcement. Over the years, Code Enforcement has been under different departments including the police. They currently reside with the Development Department. How do they know whether a property or business is following the conditions set forth in that now-years-old development order?
The City of Stuart has decided not to be proactive in most cases. It is not as if the agents will ignore a serious violation if they encounter it. Tickets are not issued for the car parked on a lawn or the boat in the front yard unless a neighbor complains. If the obvious ones are winked at, then how about the “one off” that make up much of approved projects.
I don’t have an answer to this dilemma. There doesn’t seem to be a desire by most neighbors to turn snitch. Sometimes, as in my case, you just live with the problem. But a couple of times a week when I hear the music, I become angry and then am resigned, and finally disappointed because I know that my quality of life has been impaired, and no one in city government cares. How many more people feel the same way?
