HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Correspondence-Grace SolaresSeptember 3, 2009
Commissioners:
During the September 4, 2009 Special Meeting, the Commission should not
entertain any amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore it should
not take any action with respect to Miami 21.
On August 6, 2009, 1 informed the Commission that it could only conduct a public
hearing to Amend the Comprehensive Plan within 60 days of the PAB's voting and
issuing a recommendation regarding the Comprehensive Plan following a public
hearing. As I then stated, the PAB's actions occurred on January 7, 2009, and far
more than 60 days had elapsed since the PAB's hearing.
The City Attorney told this Commission that it could proceed despite the clear
and unmistakable language in the City Code. After nearly 8 hours of public speaking
on the matter, this Commission took a vote. The vote was a tie, since it was a 2-2
vote. The City Attorney stated the matter had died and after a motion to adjourn was
made, we all went home.
The City Attorney knew full well that my prior statements to the Commission
regarding the City Code were absolutely accurate. However, the Administration placed
the same proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan on the PAB's agenda for
September 2, 2009. When members of the PAB asked if there had been changes to
Miami 21 from the last time the matter was before them in January 2009, the answer
was yes. As more questions were raised by members, Assistant City Attorney Maria
Chiaro admitted that the proposed amendments had only been placed on the PAB's
agenda because of what I had previously raised at the Commission meeting: the 60 day
limit had expired. The PAB voted to defer -the item because it was apparent they
needed time to review the new changes in order to be able to vote.
Tomorrow's attempt by the City to again present the same proposed
Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to the Commission continues to be
improper. First, the PAB's review, public hearing, and recommendations are well past
the 60 days. Second, the Administration's placement of that matter on the PAB agenda
for September 2, 2009 does not cure this defect, and it does not comply with City Code.
Indeed, if this Commission were to proceed it would be in violation of other provisions
of the City's Code regarding amending the Comprehensive Plan.
UJ
e
Article 11- Comprehensive Planning Section 62-33(b)(4) states:
®
p
"...applications for plan amendments, as described in
paragraph (a) of this section, can only be filed semiannually
C—
with the planning, building and zoning department up to
October 1, and up to April 1 of the following year which, if,
accepted, will be scheduled for planning advisory board®
W
public hearing in November and May, respectively...."
o - o2og5 n
08- 0131501 S�a�- CorreS�enCe- v-�ac So�areS
_
og- 01g07Zt
)
UJ
This section further states: "...the planning, building and
zoning department will schedule the amendment on an
agenda of the planing advisory board within 60 days of
the acceptance of the application, except for the month
of August." None of this has taken place.
A new application for plan amendments has not been submitted, and the
planning, building and zoning department did not schedule amendments on the PAB's
agenda. The Administration cannot simply take an expired proposed plan amendment
that was filed in 2008, put it on the PAB's September agenda, and expect the members
to rubber stamp it.
Section 62-33(4)(d) entitled "Review and recommendation by planning
advisory board", says:
The Planing advisory board, the local planning agencx, will
conduct a public meeting.... Upon completion of such
hearing, the planning advisory board may recommend to the
city commission by not less than five affirmative votes, the
adoption by the city commission of the plan update, or
portion thereof, or plan amendment, upon which the
public hearing was held. 'rhe board resolution for
recommendation shall refer expressly to the maps,
descriptive material and other data intended by the
planning advisory board to form the whole or the part of
the plans upon which the public hearing was
held .... When a plan update has been recommended... the
action taken and the recommendation made by the
planning advisory board shall be recorded on the
recommended plan, together with the signature of the
executive secretary of the planning advisory board
which shall be affixed thereto as certifying to the action
taken and the recommendation made, and the date of
such action and recommendation....
The Administration, and apparently now the City Attorney's Office, has little or no
regard for compliance with the City Code or state law. The Comprehensive Plan is a
very significant matter; it requires the actual participation and review by the PAB.
The PAB did not consider or vote out any resolution because the Administration
failed to follow the Code. Equally, that Board recognized a need existed to consider
possible changes to Miami 21 that may or could impact the Comp Plan or the
mappings.
(Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1, SP.2 & SP.3 on 09-04-09
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
In closing we ask that you do not proceed with tomorrow's agenda regarding the
Comprehensive Plan or Miami 21. Tomorrow's proceedings are in violation of the
Miami City Code. This matter must first needs to go back to the PAB on November 18,
2009, obtain the vote of the Board, and then within 60 days thereafter, hold a
Commission meeting for the first reading of Miami 21.
Respectfully,
Grace Solares
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1. SP.2 & SP.3 on 09-04-09
Priscilla A. Thompson
I
City Clerk