Cooper City commissioners agree to workshop on swale, RV and boat parking rules after heated public comments

Dozens of Cooper City residents pressed the City Commission on enforcement of parking and swale rules, saying boats, recreational vehicles and commercial vehicles are being ticketed inconsistently and that the city’s 36‑hour allowance is confusing.

The complaints came during the public-comment period and focused on perceived selective enforcement and onshore storage of RVs and boats that residents said they need for family use. “We need to stop it,” resident David Knoll said, warning that bicycling stunts and vehicle misuse on Ninetieth Avenue could lead to a fatality. Sam Rojas and Brett (last name not specified) told the commission that the prohibition on commercial vehicles and the 36‑hour rule unfairly penalizes boat owners and “weekend warriors.”

City Manager (name not specified) recommended that the commission not try to fix the ordinance in tonight’s meeting and instead convene a public workshop so staff, residents and commissioners could explore options and bring more precise language back to a future agenda. “My recommendation is that trying to correct any deficiencies to the ordinance in this meeting, this setting is not the right tool,” the city manager said.

City Attorney Jacob Horwitz explained why the city amended the code to cover swales: previously there was no mechanism to cite a vehicle when the abutting land was owned by a government entity rather than a private owner. He described the practical effect: the ordinance makes prohibited parking on a residence also prohibited on the swale and sets a 36‑hour allowance in many circumstances. “So we didn’t change what’s illegal. We just made it a way where you can cite a vehicle,” Horwitz said.

Commissioners debated common requests raised by residents: whether to allow a defined weekend or 72‑hour window for loading/unloading, how to document the 36‑hour clock (photos with timestamps, return inspections), and whether administrative or ordinance changes were required. Commissioner Schroeder proposed a workshop timed before a regular meeting to permit public participation and to consider an agreed, uniform window for loading/unloading. The commission signaled consensus to schedule the workshop and asked staff to bring written draft language rather than rely solely on anecdotes.

City staff and the attorney said options include continuing to handle individual requests through variance or magistrate processes, creating an overlay or administrative variance process for repeat situations, or amending section 25.10 of the city code (parking in residential districts) to clarify loading/unloading allowances and swale authority.

The commission asked staff to return with specific proposal language, enforcement procedures, and examples of implementation (time-stamped photographic practice, neighbor-notice procedures, and any necessary fee or magistrate changes). Miss Tedrow (city clerk) was tasked with scheduling the workshop before the next regular meeting.

Residents who asked the commission to act said they wanted clarity and predictable rules rather than apparent selective enforcement; others urged the city to keep public safety—especially children’s sight lines at schools—central to any change.