Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-11057J-92-696 2/25/93 11057 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 13, SECTION 1306, ARTICLE 19, SECTION 1904, AND ARTICLE 21, SECTION 2109; TO PROVIDE THAT THE ZONING BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, CAN RESCIND, MODIFY OR CHANGE ANY RESOLUTION HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER ADOPTED WHICH GRANTED A SPECIAL PERMIT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR VARIANCE IF THE BOARD OR COMMISSION FINDS THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS IN THE SUBJECT RESOLUTION, PROVIDING FOR REVIEW OF COVENANTS AND REMEDIAL ACTION; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of November 18, 1992, Item No. 5, following an advertised hearing adopted Resolution PAB No. 36-92 by a vote of seven to zero (7-0), RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of amending Ordinance No. 11000 as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful consideration of this matter deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to amend Ordinance No. 11000 as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: 11057 Section 1. Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, is hereby amended in the following particulars:],/ Article 13 * * s Section 1306. Conditions and safeguards. The agent, agency, or body of the city designated by this zoning ordinance as having responsibility for issuance or denial of each of the classes of special permits set out in this article 13 shall have authority to attach to the grant of any such special permit such conditions and safeguards as may be necessary for the purposes of this zoning ordinance in the particular case. Such conditions and safeguards, if attached to grant of special permit, shall be based upon and consistent with considerations and standards applicable to the class or kind of special permit involved as set out in section 1305 of this ordinance, "Considerations generally; findings and determinations required," and in other provisions relating to the particular class or kind of permit. The requirement for any such conditions or safeguards shall be supported by stated Words and/or figures stricken through shall be deleted. Underscored words and/or figures shall be added. The remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged. Ellipsis and asterisks indicate omitted and unchanged material. -2- 1105'7 reasons therefor, based upon such considerations and standards, and no such condition or safeguard shall establish special limitations and/or requirements beyond those reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose for which the condition or safeguard is attached. Failure to comply with conditions and safeguards, when attached to grant of special permit, shall be deemed a violation of this zoning ordinance. Be& ,Section 2108 Action on violations: remedies for violations on Class I or Class II special permits: and Section 2109, Penalties for violations on Special Exceptions, Article 19 Section 1904. Conditions and safeguards. 1904.1. Board may prescribe conditions and safeguards. In granting any variance, the Zoning Board may prescribe appropriate mitigating conditions and safeguards in conformity with this zoning ordinance. Violation of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this zoning ordinance and grounds for revocation of the variance. See Section 2109, Penalties. 1105'7 -3- Article 21 Section 2109. Penalties 11057 MC 11057 -5- 2109.2 Fines or Imprisonment In addition to the recission provisions as specified in sections 2109.1.1 and 2109.1.2. * any person, firm, or corporation violating or failing to comply with requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) or imprisonment for a term not exceeding sixty (60) days, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. Section 2. All ordinances or parts of ordinances insofar as they are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 3. If any section, part of section, paragraph, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is declared invalid, the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall not be affected. Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after final reading and adoption thereof. PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this 1Oth day of December 1992. 11057 PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY this 25th day of March , 1993. ATTE MA Y HIRAI CITY CLERK PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: LINDA KELLY KEARS N ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY LKK/pb/bss/M964 VIER L.i$UAREZ, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: 1105'7 -7- CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM PZ=16 TO : Honorable Mayor and DATE p FILE Members of the City CcImtission SUBJECT Alm rK1ment of Zoning Ordinance Second Reading for Revocation of Resolutions FROM REFERENCES: Item PZ-16 City Commission Ces POddio ENCLOSURES: Meeting of March 25, 1993 Per advice of the Law Department, all references pertaining to the revocation of ordinances dealing with proffered covenants, as related to changes of land use and zoning, has been deleted fr+can the proposed legislation. The Planning, Building and Zoning Department had prepared the attached legislation in response to a request by the City Commission at its meeting of December 8, 1991. The language in the original draft included the possibility of enabling the Commission to revoke ordinances related to proffered covenants if it was determined that conditions of such covenants were not complied with; the Law Department has since found that this proposed action was overly -broad in application and the has recommended that such language be deleted. 11057 PLANNING FACT SHEET APPLICANT City of Miami Planning, Building and Zoning Department, 09/22/92 REQUEST/LOCATION Amendment to Articles 13, 19 and 21 of Zoning Ordinance 110M LEGAL DESCRIPTION N/A PETITION Consideration of amending Ordinance 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami by amending Article 13, Section 1306, Article 19, Section 1904, and Article 21, Section 2109, to provide that the Zoning Board and City Commission, as the case may be, can rescind, modify or change any resolution which granted a variance or special exception if the board or commission finds that there is a violation of the conditions, restrictions or limitations in the subject resolution. PLANNING RECOMMENDATION Approval. BACKGROUND AND At the City Commission meeting of December 8, 1991, Commissioner J. L. ANALYSIS Plummer had requested the Administration and Law Department to report back to the Commission as to the type of action the City could take against violations of conditions contained in variances or special exceptions granted by the City or in voluntarily proffered covenants accepted by the City. A legal opinion was rendered (see attached). The legal opinion rendered by the Law Department makes -several points regarding failure to comply with conditions or covenants and offers the following remedies: a) judicial action; b) code enforcement and, c) revocation. The proposed amendments would allow the Zoning Board or City Commission as the case may be, to revoke, modify or change any previously issued resolution which granted a variance or special exception. PL40ING ANIUMV At its sooting of November 16, 19929: the !loaning Advisory low board adopted Resolution ?Ai 36-92, by a vote of 7-0, to — commending approval of the above. CITY CMMS3I091 At its meeting of December 10. 1993, the City Commission passed the above on First Reading. At its meeting of January 28, 1993, the City Commission continued the above. 110 5 7 i At its meeting of February 25, 1993, the City Commission continued the above. r;1 �r (l, INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM A. Quinn Jones, III Cltti' Attorney Law Department Cesar H. U Ci ty ManKe I Ti January 30, 1992 s,,(d,«T Request for Legal Opinion: Enforcement of Conditions RE;EQer.cEs City Commission Meeting: December 8, 1991 Your legal opinion is requested on the following issue: I. DOES tHE PERMISSION GRANTED CEASE WHEN AN APPLICANT/OWNER OF PROPERTY A) HAVING RECEIVED AN APPROVAL FOR SPECIAL PERMITS, VARIANCES, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ,OR ZONING AMENDMENTS WHERE CONOifIONS WERE ATTACHED BY THE BOARDS OR THE CITY COMMISSION IN THE CASE OF SPECIAL PERMITS ANC VARIANCES OR WERE VOLUNTARILY PROFFERED BY THE APPLICANT, IN THE CASE OF ZONINQ CHANGES; AND B) AFTER HAVING RECEIVED THE NECESSARY BUILDING PERMITS; AND C) AFTER iiAVING CONSTRUCTED THE FACILITY, FAILS TO MEET THE ESTABLISHED CONDITIONS BY; 0) --itEMOV(G SOMETHING REQUIRED OR PY; E) BY FAILING TO CONTINUE �. DOING MMETHING REQUIRED:' I Z. IF TH9 ANSWER TO THE FIRST ITEM 15 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, THEN A) IS'THE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION SUCH 1HAT IT SHOULD BE TAKEN THROUGH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT.PRO-FSS OR B) IS IT TREATED AS _A NON=CONFORMING USE OR STRUCTURE SINCE THE SUILUING PERMIT WAS I$SUED BY THE CITY AND THERE MA-i EXIST AN ESTOPPEL ISSUE? BACKGROUND This question recugnl7es that where governmment has granted a permission which Nenefits privato property, e.g., special permit, variance, nr special exception that there is a; ermanent commitment. by government. The point cf the question is that there shoula corresponding permanent commitment by the applicant/private property owner there government has added conditions which benefit the neighbor or the neighborflood e.g., a hedge and wall along the property line, A heavily landscaped 20' buffer strip, etc. Please respond t'o this inquiry as time issue by Commissioner J. L. Plummer at Commission on December 8th, and both instructed to follow up and report back !e: J. L. Plvlmeer, ' Conwdi s fouer permits you since it was br��+u+ght up as an the --Planning and Zoningrm"tii�q of the City the Aaminlstration arZyout�:offjce were to the City Commission:` C 1105'7 G„fllerm•i E. t1mealllu. Dlnuty Director Cesar H. Odio City Manager Quinn Janes, ZII City Atto3lney C:ir QF MIAMI. FL0aI0A INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM SATE August 4, 1992 MER-92-002 SU&EC' REFERENCES ENCLOSURES Request fot Legal Opinion Enforcement of Conditions You have requested a legal opinion on substantially the following questions: I. WHETHER THE APPROVAL, WITH CONDITIONS (REQUIRED OR PROFFERED), OF SPECIAL PERMITS, VARIANCES, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR REZONINGS IS ACTIONABLE, SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT OR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PREDICATED UPON SUCH APPROVAL, WHERE THE GRANTEE OR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST FAIL TO COMPLY WITH SAID CONDITIONS. II. IF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION I IS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, WHETHER THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO MEET THE ESTABLISHED CONDITIONS SHOULD BE CHALLENGED THROUGH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS OR TREATED AS A NON -CONFORMING USE OR STRUCTURE DUE TO ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT AND THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ESTOPPEL ISSUE. The answer to question I is in the affirmative. The conditional grantinq of special permits, variances, or special exceptions requires compliance with all conditions attached thereto. Such a special permit or variance or special exception does not actually become effective until the conditions are fulfilled, and it may be revoked if the applicant fails to comply with the conditions, or ceases compliance at a point in time subsequent to the completion of construction, subject to compliance with due process requirements. Anderson, American Law of Zoning, 3d, Sec. 20.66. v 11057 Cesar H. Odic, City Manager August 4, 1992 Page 2 Failure to meet any of the conditions, irrespective of whether building permits have been issued, causes the approval to lapse. Furthermore, violation of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the special permit, special exception or variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the zoning ordinance. Fla Jur 2d Building, Zoning & Land Controls, Sec. 145. where a violation occurs of a voluntarily proffered covenant accepted by the City in conjunction with a change of zoning, the covenant will be enforced by courts of equity as long as the requirement which the City is seeking to enforce is not against public policy or express law and is reasonable. Fla Jur 2d; Building, Zoning Land Controls, Sec. 34. In answer to the second question, if the events set forth in the first question should occur, the property is in violation. The City has several remedies available to it: judicial action for enforcement and/or damages; the code enforcement process; revocation. However, a revocation of the special permit would require an amendment to the City Code. An additional query was raised as to revocation of the certificate of occupancy and certificate of use. The suggested amendment, as discussed on page 7 of this opinion, includes this remedy. Please be advised that the property is not entitled to protection as a legal non- conforming use or structure merely because it is constructed pursuant to a building permit and has failed to meet specific conditions attached to the grant of zoning relief. Furthermore, the more issuance of the building permit does not automatically give rise to an estoppel situation. DIscussiOM In granting a special permit, a special exception or a variance, the approving board or official may attach to such grant appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the enabling ordinance and any ordinance enacted under its authority. The type and quality of the use or structure may be conditioned in ways related to the legitimate objectives of zoning. Smalleyloyics Corporation v. Dade County, 176 So.2d 574 (Fla 3d DCA 1965). In that case, a variance was issued to a private airport subject to certain conditions, one of which prohibited night flying. The Third District Court of Appeal held that the violation of that condition justified cancellation of the permit authorizing airport use. Further, at least one court has described the failure to comply with a condition attached to a variance as somewhat analogous to a breach of a contract between the municipality and a private person. State v. Larson Transfer Storage, Inc., 310 Minn 295, 246 NW 2d 176 (1976). 11057 Cesar H. Odio, City Manager August 4, 1992 Page 3 The City is required to provide for the enforcement of a zoning ordinance. This may be done administ=atively, through the City's code enforcement process, and also by judicial action. Available judicial actions include an action bytthe City for injunctive relief to prevent unlawful erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, maintenance or use, or to restrain, correct, or abate such violation. You should be aware that mandamus, in the appropriate situation, may be invoked to compel proper enforcement by municipal officials of a zoning regulation. This was the case in Miami Beach v. Sunset Islands 3 6 4 Property Owners Association, Inc., 216 So.2d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) where the court held that mandamus was appropriate to require the City building inspector to enforce a zoning change by requiring boat builders to cease storage of boats. Damages also may be obtainable in some cases, as in the case of McDonough v. Department of Natural Resources, 414 So.2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), where the court held that a civil penalty of $5,000 assessed against a builder pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 161.05.4(1) was appropriate were a builder had failed to comply with conditions attached to permits. Your query suggests that failure to comply with a condition attached to a special permit, special exception or variance, or contained in a covenant, subsequent to the issuance of building permits or even subsequent to the construction of the improvements, may endow the use or structure with the protection of a ,non -conforming use". The definition of a legal non- conforming use is a lawful use of the premises existing on the effective date of the zoning regulations and continued thereafter which does not conform to such regulations. 7 Fla Jur 2d Buildinc, Zoning i Land Controls, Sec. 131. In other words, a non -conforming use is a use which lawfully existed prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinance (or of an amendment to a theretofore existing zoning ordinance) and which therefore may be maintained after the effective date of the ordinance or amendment, although it does not comply with zoning restrictions applicable to the area. Thus, a use c`_ land, or the existence of a structure, in violation of an ordinance through circumstances other than the enactment of a zoning restriction (such as, by violation of a condition) will not be considered to be within the class of legal non -conforming uses or structures. Your query also suggests- that the violation of a zoning ordinance subsequent to the issuance of a building permit might automatically give rise to an estoppel argument against the City. N,� Such is not the case. The majority of courts throughout the United States concur that no estoppel against the enforcement of 11057 Cesar H. Odio, City Manage. - August 4, 1992 Page 4 an ordinance can be invoked against a municipality when a claim is based on a municipal officer's ultra wires act (that is, a building permit issued in violation of law or under a mistake of fact confers no right, and may be revoked at any time). However, the failure to find estoppel against the City does not i so facto relieve the City from being liable for reimbursement of monies expended in justifiable reliance upon the invalid act. Such a possibility cannot be determined in advance but should be considered in the appropriate legal analysis of each unique set of facts. Another consideration is public policy and whether the public interest in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance transcends the harm to the individual land owner. An important reason for not permitting estoppel against the issuing authority in such cases is that the issuance of a permit contrary to the provisions of an ordinance may be the result of fraud on the part of an applicant, with concurring negligence or ignorance on the part of City official, or as a result of a corrupt bargain. Corona Properties of Florida, Inc., v. Monroe County, 485 So.7d 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). As discussed in previous meetings on this issue, the case law in Florida supports the position that the City has a duty to enforce its zoning ordinances and regulations and that zoning officials acting outside their authority or in error cannot serve to exempt a•particular project from compliance with the zoning ordinance. The case of Corona Properties of Florida v. Monroe County, 485 So.2d 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), supports this principal, relying on an earlier Third District Court of Appeal case, Dade County v. Gayer, 388 So.2d 1292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). In the Corona case, the property owner appealed a final judgment in which the circuit court judge found a building permit issued to the property owner by Monroe County to be void. That case concerned a parcel of property in Key Largo, which prior to 1979 was zoned in a category which permitted the development of 58 dwelling units on the property. In 1974, the County issued a building permit for a 58 unit building to be constructed thereon. The then -owner had pilings driven :but the project- was subsequently abandoned prior to any further improvements, being made. Five years later, the zoning ordinance was amended to reduce the number of dwelling units permitted on the property to approximately 24. 11057 Cesar H. Odio, City Manager August 4, 1992 Page 5 In 1981, the then -owner received a determination from the Monroe County Zoning Official assuring him that the owner had "vested rights in and to said project" to construct a 58 unit building on the site. The then -owner received a building permit in September of 1981 to construct a 40 unit building on the property, issued solely on the basis of the vested rights letter. This project was also abandoned without significant construction and the permit expired. The Plaintiff (Corona Properties) purchased the property in 1982 and in 1983 applied for a permit to construct the same 40 units. Again, Monroe County issued a building permit in 1983 on the basis of the vested rights letter, and received a permit fee from Corona Properties of approximately $45,000. In 1984 the then -Monroe County Zoning Official and the Monroe County Administrator advised the owner in writing that it was their intention to cancel the Corona Properties permit and return the permit fee, as the prior Zoning Official had been in error when he had issued the vested rights letter. In June of 1984, the Monroe' County Commission voted to cancel the building permit and refund the permit fee. At the time of the permit's revocation, Corona Properties had spent approximately $82,000 on the project. However, the only physical work done on site was a minimal restructuring of frames for footers. Corona filed suit and the trial court found that the permit was void ab initio. On review the appellate court considered the following issues: 1. Whether the Zoning Official had the authority to issue a vested rights letter. 2. Whether the County may be equitably estopped from revoking the building permit. The court, after reviewing relevant provisions of the County Zoning Ordinance, determined that the Zoning Official does not have the authority to make a vested rights determination and thus, the vested rights letter and the 1983 permit issued pursuant to the letter are ultra wires and void ab initio.. As to the issue of equitable estoppel, the Third District Court of Appeal recited the general rule that a governmental entity may not be estopped from,the enforcement of its ordinances by an illegally issued permit. In doing so, it referred to its earlier opinion in Dade County v. Gayer, infra, where it had ruled that estoppel may not be asserted against a county for a permit issued in error and recited the policy consideration that although "the application of the rule may be harsh it would be 11057 Cesar H. Odio, City Manager August 4, 1992 Page 6 inconceivable that public officials could issue a permit, either inadvertently, through error, or intentionally, by design, which would sanction a violation of an ordinance adopted by the legislative branch of government." Thus, in'. the Corona Properties case, the Third District Court of Appeal held that the vested rights letter and the building permit having been illegally issued, estoppel may not be asserted against the county for the revocation of the building permit. However, it should be noted that in Alderman v. Stevens, 189 So.2d 168 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), the Second District Court of Appeal found differently. In that case, the circuit court of Pinellas County determined that the City was estopped to question the validity of the building permit and the Second District affirmed, after reviewing the record where there was testimony from the building inspector for the City attesting to the fact that he had been the building inspector for several years, had always construed that particular section of the building code to allow a fifteen foot set -back (instead of a 25-foot set back), and had issued at least four permits.similar to the one here in question. Furthermore, the court pointed out that the record showed the City had led the property owner to believe that the City would take no enforcement action on the matter, and that based on this consideration, and after obtaining the permit for the fifteen foot set -back from the building inspector, the property owners proceeded to expend in excess of $1,000 before the issuance of a stop work order. The court pointed out that it could not find any basis to support the City's argument that the action of the building inspector in issuing the permit was an invalid act which would have rendered the doctrine of equitable estoppel inapplicable, and therefore the court concluded that the action of the building inspector in issuing the permit was a valid act and t-he appellees had a right to rely, and did rely to their detriment, on the act. The court thus concluded that the trial court was correct in determining that estoppel existed in this case. CONCLUSION It is suggested the City consider amending its Code to provide for a process by which the Zoning Board could, subsequent to a hearing and in accordance with the precepts of due process, revoke a special permit where it is established that a condition attached thereto has been violated. This would obviously result in the simultaneous revocation of the certificate of occupancy 11057 Cesar H. Odio, City Manager August 4, 1992 Page 7 and the certificate of use. The Dade County Code contains such a mechanism, whereby the Director of its Building and Zoning Department files an application of revocation with the Board of Adjustment, which may, after a hearing revoke the variance, special exception or other zoning permit. Prepared by: . ;"/"Z/ Miriam Mae ief Assistant City Attorney GMM:ra:M265 Reviewed by: / 7 W—afaeY 0. Diaz Deputy Assistant C' Attorney 11057 J-92-696 11/23/92 ORDINANCE ORDNANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI AMENDING OR INAINCE 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORD NANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AME\ANN ARTICLE 13, SECTION 1306, ARTICLE 19,TION 1904, AND ARTICLE 21, SECTION 210O PROVIDE THAT THE ZONING BOARD AND CITMMISSION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, CAN RES, MODIFY OR CHANGE ANY RESOLUTION OR ORDHERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER ADOPTED WHIG TED A SPECIAL PERMIT, SPECIAL EXCN VARIANCE OR ACCEPTED A VOLUNTARY COVPU SUANT TO A LAND USE OR ZONING CHAIF TH BOARD OR COMMISSION FINDS THAT THES A VIOLATION OF THECONDITIONS, RESIONS LIMITATIONS IN THE SUBJECT RESON OR ORDINANCE; CONTAINING AN EFFE DATE, REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVILITY CLAU . WHEREAS, the Miami Plannin(X Advisory Board, at its meeting of November 18, 1992, Item No. 5, ollowing an advertised hearing adopted Resolution 36-92 by a vote of seven (7) to zero (0), RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of amending Ordinance No. 11000 as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Commission after ckreful consideration of this matter deems it advisable and in the est interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its i habitants to amend Ordinance No. 11000 as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: moBiFtEN pok SecoNb R-eO(AlCl Section 1. Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, is hereby amended in the following particulars:l/ Article 13 Section 1306. Conditions and safeguards. The agent, agency, or body of the city designated by this zoning ordinance as having responsibility for issuance or denial of each of the classes of special permits set out in this article 13 shall have authority to attach to the grant of any such special permit such conditions and safeguards as may be necessary for the purposes of this zoning ordinance in the particular case. Such conditions and safeguards, if attached to grant of special permit, shall be based upon and consistent with considerations and standards applicable to the class or kind of special permit involved as set out in section 1305 of this ordinance, "Considerations generally; findings and determinations required," and in other provisions relating to the particular class or kind of permit. The requirement for any such conditions or safeguards shall be supported by stated 1/ Words and/or figures stricken through shall be deleted. Underscored words and/or figures shall be added. The remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged. Ellipsis and asterisks indicate omitted and unchanged material. -2- reasons therefor, based upon such considerations and standards, and no such condition or safeguard shall establish special limitations and/or requirements beyond those reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose for which the condition or safeguard is attached. Failure to comply with conditions and safeguards, when attached to grant of special permit, shall be deemed a violation of this zoning ordinance. See Section 2108. Action on violations; remedies, for violations on Class I or Class II special permits; and Section 2109. Penalties for violations on Special Exceptions. * * * Article 19 Section 1904. Conditions and safeguards. 1904.1. Board may prescribe conditions and safeguards. In granting any variance, the Zoning Board may prescribe appropriate mitigating conditions and safeguards in conformity with this zoning ordinance. Violation of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this zoning ordinance and grounds for revocation of the variance. See Section 2109. Penalties. -3- Article 21 Section 2109. Penalties 2109.1 Rescission 2109 1 1 Zoning Board authority to rescind resolutions. The zoning board, after public hearing, may rescind, modify or change any resolution heretofore or hereafter adopted, granting a special permit, special exception or variance, if upon, application filed at any time, after the grant of special permit, special exception or variance, by the director, the zoning board finds that there has been a violation of any conditions, restrictions or limitations in the subject resolution; provided, such public hearing shall not be held until published notice (per section 62-55 of the Miami City Code) has first been given; provided further, if the director, upon written request of an aggrieved party, refuses or fails to make such an application, such aggrieved party may request the city commission, through the city manager, to instruct the director to do so Such decision of the zoning board shall be final unless an appeal is instituted to the city commission within the time, and as prescribed for other appeals thereto. 2109.1.2. City Commission authority to rescind resolutions or ordinances. -4- The city commission, after public hearing, may rescind, modify or change any resolution or ordinance, heretofore or hereafter adopted, granting a special permit, a special exception or variance, or which accepted a voluntarily proffered covenant pertaining to a change of zoning, or land use, if upon, application filed at any time, after the grant of special permit, special exception, variance or change of zoning, or land use, by the director, the city commission finds that there has been a violation of any conditions, restrictions or limitations in the resolution or ordinance; provided such public hearing shall not be held until published notice (per section 62-55 of the Miami City Code) has first been given; provided further, if the director, upon written request of any aggrieved party, refuses or fails to make such an application, such aggrieved party may request the city commission, through the city manager, to instruct the director to do so. Such decision of the city commission shall be final. Any appeal must be made to a court of competent jurisdiction within 30 days. 2109.2 Fines or Imprisonment In addition to the recission provisions as specified in sections 2109.1.1 and 2109.1.2, A any person, firm, or corporation violating or failing to comply with requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction -5- thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) or imprisonment for a term not exceeding sixty (60) days, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. * 11 Section 2. All ordinances or parts of ordinances insofar as they are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 3. If any section, part of section, paragraph, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is declared invalid, the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall not be affected'. Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after final reading and adoption thereof. PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this loth day of December , 1992. PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY this day of ATTEST: MATTY HIRAI City Clerk PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: LINDA KELLY KEARSVN Assistant City Attorney LKK/pb/M964 1992. XAVIER L. SUAREZ, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: �I. I ; /mI �'211AA City Att.►- '93 ppR -5 A .5 Cif � , �RLV EW Published Daily except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays Miami, Dade County, Florida. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DADE, Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Sookie Williams, who on oath says that she is the Vice President of Legal Advertising of the Miami Review, a daily (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) newspaper, published at Miami in Dade County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal Advertisement of Notice In the matter of CITY OF MIAMI ORDINANCE NO. 11057 in the ..............X .X .X ...............:... Court, was published in said newspaper in the issues of April 1, 1993 Affiant further says that the said Miami Review is a newspaper published at Miami in said Dade County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Dade County, Florida, each day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Miami in said Dade C Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the firs pub cation of the attached copy of advertisement; and affianift; urth r says that she has neither paid nor promised any persofir or corporation any discount, rebate, commission of d or the purpose of securing this advertisement for i in thWaid newspaper. ISt.. day of .. (SEAL) Sookie Williams Sworn to and subscribed before me this D. 19...93. OFFICIAL NOTARY SEAL CRiSTINA INCF.I.MO COMM 91ON NO, CC101081 MY COIF N16 WN EXP. APR. 5,199S ORDINANCE NO:11063 CITY AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, OF L THE-COOE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ENTITLED "STREETS AND SIDEWALKS", "SIDEWALK CAFES", BY All interested pers ADDING DEFINITIONS; ALLOWING NEW SIDEWALK CAFES March, 1993, the City IN CONJUNCTION WITH A "FOOD ESTABLISHMENT — following titled ordin TAKE OUT ONLY", PROVIDED SUCH ESTABLISHMENT PRO- VIDES REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING OR PAYS A MITI - AN EMERGENCY GATION FEE IN LIEU THEREOF; MORE PARTICULARLY BY " OF THE CODE Q AMENDING SECTIONS 54.109, 54.111, AND 54.113; AMENDED, BY A CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY IDA STATE STATU CLAUSE AND PROVIDING PC* AN EFFECTIVE: DATE. IDA STATE STAT ORDINANCE NO. 11064 267.055(10Xb) AND AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AS SAID PROVISI AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF 0S AND PROC MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE TEXT OF 'ARTICLE BUILD" PROJECT 6, SECTION 014, SPECIAL DISTRICT 14, 14.1 AND 14.2; LATIN iNiTIONS TO SE QUARTER COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL SECTION 16.52.3O DISTRICTS" TO REFLECT MODIFICATIONS, ARID LIMfTA- TIONS, IN THE PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUC- AWARDS OF SAt PROVISION, SEVE " TURES,` CONDITIONAL PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY AN EFFECTIVE D PERMITTED USES, PROPOSED SIGN LIMITAtfON$ AND SPECIAL PERMITS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING CY%O AN EFFEC-' AN ORDINANCE PI TIVE GATE. OF ORDINANCE COMPREHENSIV4 ORDINANCE 140.11066 THE PROPERTY i AN ORDINANCE, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE AVENUE, MIAMI OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO., DESCRIBED HER 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE IGNATION FROM{ CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOR THE AREA GENERALLY DE14TIAL TO REST KN01NN AS SPECIAL ;DISTRICT 14, 14.1 AND "14.2 LATIN INGS; iNSTRUCTIS QUARTER COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL THIS ORDINANC DISTRICTS, MORE PARTiCU AMLY DEOCMEP*N SU MIL A REPEALER "A" ATTACHED HERETO, TO REFLIyCT A OF THE PROVIDING FOR SO-14.i 'COMMERCIAL-RESID0NTIA1 STRICT Algf) AN ORDINANCE_A,, CHANGING THE SD 14.2 RESIDEI01AL ICT TO READ NANCE N0.11000j AS SD-14.1 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; CONTAINING, ,A THE CITY OF'; REPEALER PROVism, SEVERMIILiTY CLAUSE,RO- AND P OF OF SCHEDULE G VIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 114G THE ZONING iORDINAIM 1i0fi6 SiTI AN ORDINANCERAMENDING'ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS MEDIUM iJEN THE PROPERTY AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AVENUE, PROPERTY MIAMI BY AMENDING: "ARTICLE 6, SPECIAL DISTRICTS DESCRIBED" HER GENERAL PROVISIONS", TO ALLOW AUTO CARE SERVICE EAST, WEST, AND CENTERS BY SPECIAL. EXCEPTION IN SD•14 AND SO.14.1 EA EA LATIN QUARTER COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO TIES ON THE Ei SEPARATE TH! AND -AMENDING ARTICLE 25 "DEFINITIONS" TO AMEND E ALL THEN T14E E THE DEFINITION FOR AUTO CARE SERVICE CENTERS; ATLAS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, SEVERABILITY ZONING AND A ATLAS' CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ORDINANCE W. �11�067 AN ORDINANCE i AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY dF'1111ADRIAI"'AWNDING ORDI AMENDED, THE i NANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE MIAMI, FLORIDA,' OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTI- SO.2 COCONUT CLE 13, SECTION 1306, ARTICLE 19, SECTION 1904, AND AND 617. SD•17 ARTICLE 21, SECTION 2109; TO PROVIDE THAT THE ZONING TRICT, TO CLARI BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHARED OFFSTi( CAN RESCIND, MODIFY OR CHANGE ANY RESOLUTION VISION THAT PRE HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER ADOPTED WHICH"GRANTED OF REQUIRED PI A SPECIAL PERMIT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR VARIANCE IF PUBLIC RiGHTS THE BOARD" OR COMMISSION FINDS THAT THERE is A, AND DINING ARj VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, OR LIM- CULATIONS USE ITATiONS IN THE SUBJECT RESOLUTION, PROVIDING FO(; REOUIREMENTSa REVIEW OF COVENANTS AND REMEDIAL ACTIO A PROCEDURE j CONTAINING A REPEALER .PROVISION, SEVERAi3ILITY LIEU OF PROVIDII CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE., NON-RESIDENTI! ORDINANCE NO.11058 AND BY AMEND AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI AMENDING THE DEFINITION; COI CITY CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 62, SECTION 63-36; A SEVERABIL17 TO PROVIDE THAT THE ZONING BOARD CAN RESCIND, EFFECTIVE DATO MODIFY OR CHANGE ANY RESOLUTION HERETOFORE OR " li HEREAFTER ADOPTED WHICH GRANTED A SPECIAL IT AN ORDINANCE: PERM, SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR VARIANCE IF THE BOARD OF THE CITY O� FINDS THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONS, TLED "MOTOR V RESTRICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS iN THE SUBJECT RESO- - NEW ARTICLE V LUTION CONTAINING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, A REPEALER IMPROVEMENT I PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. LISHMENT OF Said ordinances may Inspected:, by the public at the Office of MENTS FOR PAhe City Clerk, 3500 Pan American Drive, Mimi; Florida, Mon* PARKING AND rough Friday, excluding holidays, between the hours of &W SETTING FORT m. and 5:00 p.m. BE DEPOSITEQ ITURES FROM... MATTY HIRAI GROVE PARKINPARKINI CITY CLERK ULARLY BY AD" MIAMI, FLORIDA AND 35194; SEVERABRITY }�. TIVE 0ATE.