Sunrise delays ordinance on private-roadway and parking-lot safety after officials cite cost and liability concerns

The City of Sunrise Local Planning Agency voted on Jan. 14 to remove from the agenda a proposed ordinance to amend Chapter 16 of the city’s Land Development Code (Article 7, Off‑Street Parking and Loading, Section 16‑142) to add requirements for private roadways, access drives and parking‑lot safety standards.

The measure, presented as a public‑hearing item, drew support for its intent to reduce vehicle intrusions into canals and other water bodies but prompted several members to say they wanted more time to refine the language and engage property owners before taking formal action.

The proposal would have amended Section 16‑142 of Chapter 16 (Land Development Code) to set standards on location, character and size for private access drives and parking areas. Mayor (presiding) praised staff work on the “novel” issue but warned the draft could impose unintended obligations on owners of existing properties. “As it reads though, it would appear to apply that to every existing property. I don't think that was the intent,” the Mayor said, adding the ordinance could require owners to hire engineers and incur “3, 4, 5, $1,000” in costs even when the review produced no required changes.

Commissioner Scudo said he supported the concept but was not prepared to approve the draft as written. “Personally, I'm not prepared to support this as written tonight. I support the concept. I'd like staff to engage with the property owners where we've had this issue,” Scudo said.

Deputy Mayor Kirch and Assistant Deputy Mayor Guzman also urged delay. Kirch said many Sunrise properties already face higher insurance rates and 40‑year inspections and warned a new ordinance could impose additional costs. Guzman asked staff to prioritize the most hazardous lakes and properties while the broader ordinance is refined.

City Manager Mark Lubelski told the panel that staff has identified “a handful” of locations that raise engineering concerns and that the commission’s direction was to engage affected property owners and seek amicable solutions before returning the draft ordinance to the commission. Staff recommended removing the item from the agenda to allow that outreach; commissioners agreed and the item was officially removed and will be brought back later for further discussion.

A single member of the public, Dawn Lehi, addressed the agency but her comment concerned a variance process separate from the ordinance; staff directed her to Shannon Lay for follow‑up.

Discussion noted several incidents over past years in which vehicles entered canals — including one fatality referenced during debate — which supporters said the ordinance seeks to reduce. Members repeatedly stressed they did not oppose the goal of reducing water intrusions, but wanted clearer language, narrower initial application, and more outreach to property owners and associations to avoid imposing undue costs or creating a new standard of care that could increase liability for properties that had not been previously inspected.

Next steps: staff will contact property owners at sites identified as raising safety concerns and report back to the commission with revised language and recommendations. The item will return to the Local Planning Agency and the regular commission agenda at a later date; no vote on the ordinance was taken at the Jan. 14 meeting.