On October 14th Katy Sorenson has two items on the agenda that should have sparks flying (especially if Natacha has recovered from her surgery and attends). Both relate to the Department of Community Affairs rejection of the unreformable majority's vote moving the Urban Development Boundary for two applications. The DCA found them both "not in compliance." The ordinances basically recommend that the County Commission, to avoid costly legal fees, return the subject properties to their prior designations of “Open Land and “Agriculture” or at the very least, that the Mayor/County Manager negotiate with the State to reach a settlement.
Here are the two proposed ordinances in their entirety:
082376
TITLE
RESOLUTION DIRECTING COUNTY MAYOR OR DESIGNEE TO NEGOTIATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO RESOLVE PENDING DISPUTE OVER APRIL 2007-08 CYCLE APPLICATIONS TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN (CDMP) AND TO PRESENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR APPROVAL ACCORDING TO PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN SECTION 163.3184, FLORIDA STATUTES
BODY
WHEREAS, Applications No. 5 and No. 8 of the April 2007-08 Cycle applications to amend the Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) proposed expanding the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) to add the properties that were the subjects of those applications to the urbanized area and to redesignate the subject properties as follows: for Application No. 5, from “Open Land” to “Business and Office” and “Institutions, Utilities, and Communications”; and, for Application No. 8, from “Agriculture” to “Business and “Office”; and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2008, this Board adopted Ordinances No. 08-44 and No. 08-45, taking final action to adopt Applications No. 5 and No. 8, respectively, to approve the expansion of the UDB and the redesignation of the subject properties, and to accept restrictive covenants in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has issued a Statement of Intent (SOI) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to find the adopted Applications No. 5 and No. 8 “not in compliance” with the applicable laws; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 163.3184(10), Fla. Stat., DCA has commenced an administrative proceeding styled Department of Community Affairs v. Miami-Dade County, Case No. 08-3614GM, before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, at the conclusion of which the ALJ will issue a recommended order to the Administration Commission addressing whether the adopted Applications No. 5 and No. 8 are “in compliance” with the applicable laws; and
WHEREAS, various third parties have intervened in the administrative proceeding, both for and against the adopted Applications No. 5 and No. 8, and some of the intervenors have not only adopted DCA’s objections but have also lodged additional objections; and
WHEREAS, in prior matters, such litigation has proved to be complex, costly, and time-consuming, requiring substantial commitment of staff resources and out-of-pocket expenses; and
WHEREAS, in the SOI, DCA recommended, to remedy the alleged lack of compliance, that the County “rescind the Future Land Use Map amendments associated with Ordinance Numbers 08-44 and 08-45”; and
WHEREAS, in a difficult budget year, this Board must make difficult decisions about how to best allocate limited resources; and
WHEREAS, extended litigation in this matter is not in the current best interests of the County, and the Board wishes to avoid the expense, delay, and uncertainty of lengthy litigation and instead desires to proceed through a Settlement Agreement process; and
WHEREAS, section 163.3184(16) of the Florida Statutes sets forth a process for DCA and a local government to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a dispute concerning whether a CDMP amendment is “in compliance,”
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that this Board hereby directs the County Mayor or designee to negotiate a proposed settlement agreement that would return the subject properties of Applications No. 5 and No. 8 of the April 2007 Cycle applications to amend the Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) to their prior designations of “Open Land and “Agriculture,” respectively, with the Florida Department of Community Affairs and all other parties necessary for a full and final resolution of the administrative proceeding styled Department of Community Affairs v. Miami-Dade County, Case No. 08-3614GM. This Board further directs the Mayor or designee to present the proposed negotiated agreement to this Board for approval in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 163.3184, Fla. Stat.
082731
TITLE
RESOLUTION URGING THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS TO NEGOTIATE WITH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY IN AN EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE PENDING DISPUTE OVER THE APRIL 2007-08 CYCLE APPLICATIONS TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN (CDMP) INCLUDING THE OPTION OF RETURNING THESE TWO PARCELS TO THEIR ORIGINAL DESIGNATIONS
BODY
WHEREAS, Applications No. 5 and No. 8 of the April 2007-08 Cycle applications to amend the Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) proposed expanding the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) to add the properties that were the subjects of those applications to the urbanized area and to redesignate the subject properties as follows: for Application No. 5, from “Open Land” to “Business and Office” and “Institutions, Utilities, and Communications”; and, for Application No. 8, from “Agriculture” to “Business and “Office”; and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2008, this Board adopted Ordinances No. 08-44 and No. 0845, taking final action to adopt Applications No. 5 and No. 8, respectively, to approve the expansion of the UDB and the redesignation of the subject properties, and to accept restrictive covenants in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has issued a Statement of Intent (SOI) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to find the adopted Applications No. 5 and No. 8 “not in compliance” with the applicable laws; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 163.3184(10), Fla. Stat., DCA has commenced an administrative proceeding styled Department of Community Affairs v. Miami-Dade County, Case No. 08-3614GM, before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, at the conclusion of which the ALJ will issue a recommended order to the Administration Commission addressing whether the adopted Applications No. 5 and No. 8 are “in compliance” with the applicable laws; and
WHEREAS, various third parties have intervened in the administrative proceeding, both for and against the adopted Applications No. 5 and No. 8, and some of the intervenors have not only adopted DCA’s objections but have also lodged additional objections; and
WHEREAS, in a difficult budget year, this Board must make difficult decisions about how to best allocate limited resources; and
WHEREAS, extended litigation in this matter is not in the current best interests of the County, and the Board wishes to avoid the expense, delay, and uncertainty of litigation by pursuing settlement negotiations with DCA; and
WHEREAS, section 163.3184(16) of the Florida Statutes sets forth a process for DCA and a local government to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a dispute concerning whether a CDMP amendment is “in compliance”,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that this Board:
Section 1. Urges the Florida Department of Community Affairs to negotiate with Miami-Dade County through the Mayor or designee in an effort to resolve the pending dispute over the April 2007-08 cycle applications to amend the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) including the option of returning these two parcels to their original designations.
Section 2. Directs the Clerk of the Board to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the Secretary of the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
4 comments:
They should settle. Can they stop the outside lawsuits against the State if they rescind the zoning changes they granted or were those zoning changes given to 5 and 8 subject to State approval, thus, giving them an out? Not a moderate should know...
Sure they can settle and rescind their votes. Not likely however. This is kind of a test run for the entire UDB issue. They'll probably let it play out and see how far the state is willing to go as far as punitive action for disregarding the State's rulings.
The odd twist is that the County Attorneys will be deposing the County Staff as hostile witnesses. The County Attorney represents the BCC on this issue which is on the opposite side of the Administration (Staff)
m
Thanks Moderate...
What is the surgery: A Lobotomy?
Post a Comment