Loading...
05-21-1982 Special MeetingSPECIAL MEETING MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE COUNCIL May 21, 1982 A special meeting of the Miami Shores Village Council was held on May 21, 1982, at 2:30 p.m. at the Village Hall, with the following Council members present: Mayor Robert J. Lodge Herbert Spahn, Jr. Donald W. McIntosh Elspeth Jensen Absent: Henry A. Everett Also Present: L. R. Forney, Jr., Village Manager William Yates, Acting Village Attorney John A. Fletcher, Police Chief TRAIN WHISTLE ORDINANCE: Mayor Lodge opened the meeting noting the decision by the County which appeared in today's paper not to enforce Ordinance 81-56, better known as the Train Whistle Ordinance. The ordinance forbids use of train whistles at certain times and authorizes individual municipalities the power of enforcement. Mayor Lodge stated that our prime concern was our responsibility to our residents. He declared if we can work with the County in our Court system we certainly must and desire to do so, but our residents have fought hard for this Ordinance and deserve its enforcement. Mayor explained that we have four options with regard to the Train Whistle Ordinance: Option one is to do nothing; Option two - this is a resolution of Miami Shores Village Council offering assistance to Dade County in legal actions to enforce the train whistle noise pollution ordinances; Option three - this is a resolution of Miami Shores Village Council requesting the Board of County Commissioners to take immediate action to enable the enforcement of the Ordinances on control of train whistle noise pollution; 5/21/82 -2- Option four - local enforcement. The meeting was opened to the floor with regard to County and Court action. The major question was, "Why have they decided not to enforce the law that is now on the books as a law?" Mr. Peter Tell, representative of Dade County Attorney's office, prefaced his remarks by stating that he was before the Council at the Director of Mr. Ginsberg to try to work in a cooperative manner towards a common goal, which is upholding this ordinance and institute its enforcement. Mr. Tell, who drafted the ordinance, stated he had a personal interest, as well as a professional one, to see the ordinance is upheld in Court and the will of the County is carried out. However, he advised that it was a necessary decision made in the course of litigation not to "enforce the law" at this time on the part of the County. A discussion followed regarding liability to the County and/or the municipality. Mr. Tell advised that the earliest date the Court had available to consider the matter was in September, at which time two days were set aside by Judge Moore. An offer was made by the Court to consolidate the hearing preliminary injunction with the final injunction hearing, as permitted, so that evidence is heard once. A general discussion followed. Mrs. Fran Farina reminded the Council that it was exactly one year and two days ago that the underlying Ordinance (81-56) was passed. Many people worked long and hard for the ordinance, and the results were to be heard on Sunday night, May 16th, when it was to go into effect. However, the Railroad has not honored the ordinance and the County has not enforced it. If we have 5/21/82 -3- an ordinance on the books, with the presumption of constitutionality, why are we not enforcing it? Threat of liability has been with us on all resolutions passed, on all ordinances that the County has passed; this has constantly been an undercurrent that has been present. If you want to balance liability, the negligence of the Railroad, of the City, the County, the negligence of the driver, Mrs. Farina believes we have done everything we need to do to protect the drivers coming through our community. She noted that the feeling of the people in the community is that they do want to see action. Mr. Brown, of Project Whistle Stop, wished to know why the liability is different if the law is enforced at present. Attorney Yates responded if the case pending against the County is resolved, it will dispose of the liability problem. He also noted that liability is a very serious situation for a small village such as Miami Shores. Following discussion, the resolution was modified as follows: the resolution states that Miami Shores Village stands ready to offer assistance to Dade County in legal actions to enable enforcement of the train whistle noise pollution ordinance. It states that the Miami Shores Village Council requests the Board of County Commissioners to take immediate action to enable the prompt enforcement of the ordinance on control of train whistle noise pollution. A motion was made by Mr. McIntosh to approve the resolution as corrected. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Jensen and the resolution was unanimously passed and adopted, same being: RESOLUTION NO. 734-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE COUNCIL REQUESTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO ENABLE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCES ON CONTROL OF TRAIN WHISTLE NOISE POLLUTION. 5/21/82 -4- Mr. Spahn requested that the Village Manager inform other municipal- ities of our action and request that they do the same. On the question of enforcement of the county ordinance, Option four, a motion was made by Mr. McIntosh that we withhold enforcement until the Ordinance is adjudicated by the Court. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Jensen and passed 3/1 with Mayor Lodge dissenting. The meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m. illage Clerk APPROVED: Robert J. Lodge, Mayor rrrrc�-o-�J