HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Bob De La Fuente's PresentationOUTLOOK MEDIA OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC
PRESENTATION
Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision
City Commission Meeting
April 8, 2010, 2010
PZ.6
09-00616za
I. INTRODUCTION
a. BDF
b. Client — Outlook Media of So. Florida
c. Handed out a packet for your reference
d. We will also have some questions for the Zoning
Administrator/Pieter Bockweg
II. MATTER: Appeal of May 20, 2009 Zoning
Administrator's decision granting local government
permission for outdoor advertising location known as
Lummus.
a. Tab A of the packet — summary of our appeal.
b. Aerial View/Exhibit
i. Subject approval which we are challenging is at
the Lummus Site
u t C 1
41 o Y
� 3 o QJ
c.c ; aEv,
QJ o 00
o 0
C �O F- U
1 41
E , Q
o p ro
u
539200.2 r �+
Y 'fl al L
09 001o/(OZaa—Subr�,-ff6L %b L R,nte^ s �re��fi���OP-, g a
W 41
ii. Outlook filed an appeal of a denial on what's
known as the Can Partners site on 2/24/09.
iii. It is well within the 1500 from the Lummus site.
iv. This exhibit illustrates why the Zoning
Administrator's decision was wrong. In a nut-
shell — it was improper to approve an application
at the Lummus site while the Can Partners appeal
was pending. Indeed — during the pendency of
the appeal, it was improper to approve any signs
within the red zone on the exhibit.
III. PACKET WALKS YOU THROUGH OUR
ARGUMENTS
IV. PROBLEM IS WITH UNDEFINED AND SHIFTING
CITY PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR
EVALUATION AND APPROVAL OF THESE
APPLICATIONS
a. 3/22 — Zoning Board — City denied Outlook
application for Carter sites which included denials of:
i. Contemporary Contractors
ii. Tanaka
b. At that hearing — Bockweg said that those were denied
because appeals were pending at the Department of
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
539200.2
item PZ.6 on 04-08-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Administrative Hearings —same as pending Can
Partners appeal.
i. Didn't want to approve something that could
cause a conflict if appeals were resolved in favor
of the appellant. Tab Q
ii. Same situation here — pending hearing on the Can
Partners site at Dept. of Administrative Hearings
— if appeal granted, would be in conflict with the
Lummus approval.
iii. Ask to be evaluated by same rules
iv. Appeal was pending before the City in May and
is now pending at the State level
v. By City's own admission on March 22, they do
not approve applications when appeals are
pending to avoid "conflict."
vi. Accordingly, they have essentially admitted that
Lummus should not have been approved.
V. PROCEDURAL DUE
PROCESS/JENNINGS/SUNSHINE LAW
VIOLATIONS
a. Understand it's standard City procedure for the
Manager's Office, the City Attorney's Office and Staff
to brief the Commission on pending agenda items.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
539200.2 item PZ.6 on 04-08-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
b. This process applies to appeals pending before the
Commission as well where the City is a party and
where it's of such a nature that -the City has to retain
separate counsel to advise the Commission.
c. We object to this practice.
d. Not alleging bad intent — but we do believe that this
process is flawed and is fundamentally unfair to any
applicant who has filed an appeal that the Commission
is to consider.
e. Violation of due process as well as Jennings violations
in this quasi-judicial setting.
f. This serves as further grounds to grant our appeal.
VI. HOUESKEEPING MATTER
a. South Florida Equitable, with same principals as
Outlook, has a pending Federal lawsuit against the
city.
b. Any constitutional arguments are reserved for
presentation to the federal court.
VII. QUESTIONS FOR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
539200.2
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.6 on 04-08-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
VIII.QUESTIONS FOR PIETER BOCKWEG
IX. RESERVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL
539200.2
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.6 on 04-08-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk