2.a) Second reading of Ordinance #22-07 of the City of Dunedin providing for an overlay framework and amending Division 3: Overlay Zoning Districts to incorporate Section 103-31.3 establishing the "C” (CHARACTER OVERLAY)
I am opposed to both overlay Ordinances. I LOVE Dunedin's character. But character is not just history & architecture, but also our businesses, walkability, & people - our inclusiveness, quirkiness, embracing of differences. The overlays focus solely on architecture, a tiny part of our character, sacrificing other aspects of our character. Most HOA’s include Architectural Review Boards (ARB) to oversee/control architecture. The proposed overlay districts are effectively an HOA ARB. Establishing an HOA has to follow laws, 1 is that ALL in a new HOA must agree to being included (hence most are done by a developer vs once property is sold). This is so noone has their property rights usurped by another. All affected parties aren't agreeing to the overlay. Taking away property rights against peoples' will should only be done in cases of dire need where the impact of NOT taking away property rights is imminent, tangible, & substantial on the whole community. We are not in that situation.
I am opposed to both overlay Ordinances. I LOVE Dunedin's character. But character is not just history & architecture, but also our businesses, walkability, & people - our inclusiveness, quirkiness, embracing of differences. The overlays focus solely on architecture, a tiny part of our character, sacrificing other aspects of our character. Most HOA’s include Architectural Review Boards (ARB) to oversee/control architecture. The proposed overlay districts are effectively an HOA ARB. Establishing an HOA has to follow laws, 1 is that ALL in a new HOA must agree to being included (hence most are done by a developer vs once property is sold). This is so noone has their property rights usurped by another. All affected parties aren't agreeing to the overlay. Taking away property rights against peoples' will should only be done in cases of dire need where the impact of NOT taking away property rights is imminent, tangible, & substantial on the whole community. We are not in that situation.