05-03-2005
A'!he City of
rì. ventura
-(i.
'..."./
.Loal P1RnnÚll ~~
Susan Gottlieb, Mayor
City Mam;r
Eric M. Soroka, ICMA-CM
Zev Auerbach
Bob Diamond
Harry Holzberg
Billy Joel
Michael Stern
Luz Urbáez Weinberg
~
Teresa M. Soroka, CMC
City Attornev
Weiss Serota Helfman
Pastoriza Guedes Cole & Boniske
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
AGENDA
MAY 3, 2005 - 6 PM
Aventura Government Center
19200 West Country Club Drive
Aventura.F]ocida33]80
1. CALL TO ORDER\ROLL CALL
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
November 9, 2004
3. PUBLIC HEARING: MOTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE
FOLLOWING ORDINANCE:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF A VENTURA, FLORIDA (THE "CITY"),
PROVIDING FOR IMPOSITION OF A MORATORIUM ON ISSUANCE OF
DEVELOPMENT ORDERS AND DEVELOPMENT PERMITS WITHIN THE
CITY CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS PROPOSED ON
PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD WITHIN ANY
RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE CITY;
PROVIDING FOR WAIVER, VESTED RIGHTS, APPEALS, EXHAUSTION
OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, APPLICABILITY, SEVERABILITY;
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
4. ADJOURNMENT.
This meeting is open to the public. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, all persons who are disabled and
who need special accommodations to participate in this meeting because of that disability should contact the Office of the City Clerk,
305-466-890], not later than two days prior to such proceeding. Anyone wishing to appeal any decision made by the City of Aventura
Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter conside"d al such meeting or hearing will need a record of the proceedings and, for
such purpose, may need to ensu" that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which "cord includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Agenda Items may be viewed at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Aventura
Government Center, ] 9200 West Country Club Drive, Aventura, Florida, 33180. Anyone wishing to obtain a copy of any agenda item
should contact the City Clerk at 305-466-8901. One or mo" members of the City of Aventura Advisory Boards may also be in
attendance.
A'!he CIty of
ð.ventura
_&:\.-
~
MINUTES
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2004 6 PM
Government Center
19200 W. Country Club Drive
Aventura. Florida 33180
1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by
Mayor Jeffrey M. Perlow. Present were Commissioners Zev Auerbach, Jay R. Beskin,
Bob Diamond, Manny Grossman, Harry Holzberg, Vice Mayor Ken Cohen, Mayor
Perlow, City Manager Eric M. Soroka, City Clerk Teresa M. Soroka and City Attorney
David M. Wolpin. As a quorum was determined to be present, the meeting
commenced.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion to approve the minutes of the July 6, 2004
LPA Hearing was offered by Vice Mayor Cohen, seconded by Commissioner Diamond
and unanimously passed.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: MOTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE
FOLLOWING ORDINANCES:
Mr. Wolpin read the following ordinance by title:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AVENTURA, FLORIDA, AMENDING
SECTION 31-21 "DEFINITIONS" OF THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS TO INCLUDE DEFINITIONS FOR "SECONDHAND
JEWELRY" AND "SECONDHAND PRECIOUS METALS" AND TO AMEND
SECTION 31-144(c) "COMMUNITY BUSINESS (B2) DISTRICT" OF THE
CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO INCLUDE THE
PURCHASE AND SALE OF SECONDHAND JEWELRY AND SECONDHAND
PRECIOUS METALS AS A PERMITTED USE; TO REQUIRE PROVISION OF
SECURITY PLANS FOR ESTABLISHMENTS THAT PURCHASE AND SELL
SECONDHAND JEWELRY AND SECONDHAND PRECIOUS METALS AND
TO PROHIBIT PAWNSHOPS IN THE "COMMUNITY BUSINESS (B2)
DISTRICT"; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
A motion to recommend adoption was offered by Commissioner Grossman and
seconded by Commissioner Diamond. Planning Director Joanne Carr addressed
the Commission and entered the staff report into the record. Mayor Perlow
opened the public hearing. The following individual addressed the Commission:
Cliff Schulman, Esq. representing the applicant. There being no further
speakers, the public hearing was closed. An amendment was offered by Vice
Mayor Cohen, seconded by Commissioner Diamond and unanimously passed to
change "secondhand" to "previously-owned" and include "watches" in the
definition. The motion, as amended, passed unanimously by roll call vote.
4.
ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business to come before the Local
Planning Agency, the meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m.
Teresa M. Soroka, CMC, City Clerk
Approved by the LPA on
2
CITY OF AVENTURA
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Commission rß
Eric M. Soroka, ICMA-CM, City / ag
April 22, 2005
Ordinance Providing for the Imposition of a Moratorium
TO:
SUBJECT:
May 3, 2005 Local Planning Agency Agenda Item 3
1"' Reading May 3,2005 City Commission Meeting Agenda Item.L
2nd Reading June 7, 2005 City Commission Meeting Agenda Item-
Attached is the proposed Ordinance providing for the imposition of a Moratorium on the
issuance of development orders and permits within the City on property east of
Biscayne Blvd. within any residential and commercial zoning district. The Ordinance is
based on parameters and recommendations discussed at. the April 21, 2005
Commission Meeting Workshop.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
EMS/aca
Attachment
CCO1344-05
ORDINANCE NO. 2005--
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF A VENTURA,
FLORIDA (THE "CITY"), PROVIDING FOR IMPOSITION
OF A MORATORIUM ON ISSUANCE OF DEVELOPMENT
ORDERS AND DEVELOPMENT PERMITS WITHIN THE
CITY CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS
PROPOSED ON PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF
BISCAYNE BOULEVARD WITHIN ANY RESIDENTIAL
OR COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE CITY;
PROVIDING FOR WAIVER, VESTED RIGHTS, APPEALS,
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES,
APPLICABILITY, SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Cornmission is presently working through its consultants and staff
on the study and preparation of an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (the "EAR") for the City's
Comprehensive Plan which, upon implementation, when coupled with any necessary
amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations ("LDR's"),
shall serve to further guide land use and development, so that the public health, welfare and
safety is protected and the aesthetic and visual qualities of the City are further enhanced and are
protected from impairment; and
WHEREAS, the City has previously identified the following major issues that will be
addressed during the EAR process:
. Development and Redevelopment
. Housing
. Emergency Management
. Transportation
. Intergovernmental Coordination
. Quality of Life; and
WHEREAS, during the moratorium provided for in tlùs Ordinance, the City shall focus on
Ordinance No. 2005-
Page 2
the study and formulation of remedial measures related to the following areas which need to be
addressed during the EAR process:
1.
Traffic concurrency;
2.
The Town Center land use designation;
3.
Redevelopment guidelines;
4.
Building height;
5.
Emergency management; and
WHEREAS, an important element of the City's growth management strategy concerns
the necessity to be prepared to handle the substantial likelihood of an emerging trend for
extensive redevelopment activities arising within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to insure that during the pendency of the
necessary study activity, presently underway, for the formulation and implementation of the
EAR and the remedial measures referenced herein, that additional development orders and
development permits are not issued in the City for any development within the scope of the
moratorium which is described herein, so that once the EAR and any resulting Comprehensive
Plan amendments, and LDR amendments (collectively, the "Growth Management Regulations")
are prepared and implemented, such Growth Management Regulations will be fully effective in
accomplishing the City's lawful purposes; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 31-31 of the City Code of the City, the City
Commission has been designated as the local planning agency for the City pursuant to Section
163.3174, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has reviewed the moratorium regulations set forth in
this Ordinance and has determined that such moratorium regulations are consistent with the
2
Ordinance No. 2005-
Page 3
applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan of the City; and
WHEREAS, in enacting the moratorium regulations provided for herein, the City
Commission has been guided by the advice of the City Attorney and City Manager as set forth in
the City Attorney's Memorandum of April 8, 2005 entitled "Potential Moratorium".
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF A VENTURA, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Recitals Adopted.
That each of the above stated recitals is hereby
adopted and confirmed,
Section 2. Moratorium Imposed; Applicability
A.
That during the time that this Ordinance is in effect, as specified in Section 7
below, there shall be a moratorium upon the issuance of Development Orders and Development
Permits, as those terms are defined in Section 163.3164, Fla.Stat. (collectively "Development
Orders") concerning development on any property in the City which is located east of Biscayne
Boulevard in any areas of that portion of the City which are presently zoned residential or
commercial. For purposes of this Ordinance, the term "zoned residential", as used herein,
includes all of those residential zoning districts which are listed in Section 31-143 of the City
Code. For purposes of this Ordinance, the term "zoned commercial", as used herein, includes all
of those zoning districts which are listed in Section 31-144 and Section 31-145 of the City Code.
B.
That notwithstanding anything to the contrary above, this moratorium shall not
apply to:
1.
any public purpose project which is required by any government entity; and
2.
any office buildings of a height which does not exceed ten (10) stories; and
3,
any development for which a building permit or any required site plan approval
3
Ordinance No. 2005-
Page 4
has been issued prior to the imposition of this moratorium; and
4.
any development which is protected from a change in municipal ordinances to the
extent provided by Section 163.3233, Florida Statutes, for those statutory
development agreements which have been previously entered into; and
5.
the construction, renovation or improvement of (i) individual single family
homes; or (ii) retail or office space within the confines of existing buildings; or
(iii) non-occupiable structures, including signs, cable television or
telecommunication facilities; and
6.
work for the decoration of the exterior of an existing structure or for the
improvement of the interior of existing dwelling units; and
7.
improvements authorized by administratively approved amendments to site plans
referenced in paragraph (3) above, so long as said improvements do not increase
the intensity or density of development or adversely impact traffic conditions; and
8,
community facilities listed in Sec. 31-147(a)(1) of the City Code which constitute
a permitted or conditional use in the proposed location,
Section 3. Waivers. That the City Commission, after a public hearing held pursuant to
City Code Section 31-71 and 34-31, et. seq., may grant a waiver to the moratorium provided
above and authorize the issuance of Development Orders for a specific building, where the City
Commission determines that based upon substantial competent evidence, the specific use or
activity requested by the waiver application will not detrimentally affect the preparation and
implementation of the Growth Management Regulations, will be compatible with surrounding
land uses, and will not impair the public health, safety or welfare,
Section 4. Vested Rie:hts.
(A)
That nothing in this ordinance shall be construed or applied to abrogate the vested
right of a property owner to complete development where the property owner demonstrates each
of the following:
(1)
A governmental act of development approval was obtained prior to the
4
Ordinance No. 2005-
Page 5
effective date of this Ordinance; and
(2) Upon which the property owner has detrimentally relied, in good faith, by
making such a substantial change in position or incurring such extensive obligations and
expenses; and
(3) That it would be highly inequitable to deny the property owner the right to
complete the development.
(B)
That, except as provided by paragraph (C) below, any property owner claiming to
have vested rights under this Section 4 must file an application with the City Commission for a
vested rights determination within 30 days after the effective date of this Ordinance. The
application shall be accompanied by a fee of $1,500.00 and contain a sworn statement as to the
basis upon which the vested rights are asserted, together with documentation required by the City
Manager and other documentary evidence supporting the claim, The City Commission shall hold
a public hearing on the application pursuant to City Code Section 31-71 and City Code Section
34-31, et. seq., and based upon the evidence submitted shall make a determination as to whether
or not the property owner has established vested rights. To the extent that a property owner
demonstrates vested rights, the moratorium shall not be applied.
(C)
That any property owner claiming vested rights under this Section 4 by virtue of a
Vested Rights Determination Agreement with the City which was issued pursuant to City Code
Section 31-3(b), shall not be subject to this moratorium and shall be authorized to apply for
Development Orders in accordance with the Vested Rights Determination Agreement, by filing a
copy of the Vested Rights Determination Agreement with the City Manager, accompanied by a
letter which references this paragraph (C), within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this
Ordinance.
5
Ordinance No. 2005-
Page 6
Section 5. Appeals. That appeals from final decisions by the Commission under
Section 3 or Section 4 of this Ordinance shall be by the filing of a Petition for Certiorari in the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County in accordance with
the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure for the review of the quasi-judicial rulings of municipal
agencies.
Section 6. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. That no property owner claiming
that this Ordinance as applied constitutes or would constitute a temporary or permanent taking of
private property or an abrogation of vested rights may pursue such claim in court unless he or
she has first exhausted the administrative remedies provided in this Ordinance,
Section 7. Term. That the moratorium imposed by this Ordinance is temporary and
shall be effective for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days from adoption hereof, unless
dissolved earlier by the City Commission, Further, the moratorium shall automatically dissolve
upon the adoption of the Growth Management Regulations, the formulation and adoption of
which shall be expeditiously pursued. The duration of the moratorium may be reasonably
extended, if necessary, for up to an additional sixty (60) day period by Resolution of the City
Commission.
Section 8. Effective Date. That this Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon
adoption on second reading.
6
Ordinance No. 2005-
Page 7
The foregoing Ordinance was offered by Commissioner
who
moved its adoption on first reading. This motion was seconded by Commissioner
and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Commissioner Bob Diamond
Commissioner Harry Holzberg
Commissioner Billy Joel
Commissioner Michael Stern
Commissioner Luz Urbàez Weinberg
Vice Mayor lev Auerbach
Mayor Susan Gottlieb
The foregoing Ordinance was offered by Commissioner
who moved its adoption on second reading. This motion was seconded by Commissioner
and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Commissioner Bob Diamond
Commissioner Harry Holzberg
Commissioner Billy Joel
Commissioner Michael Stem
Commissioner Luz Urbàez Weinberg
Vice Mayor lev Auerbach
Mayor Susan Gottlieb
PASSED AND ADOPTED on first reading this 3rd day of May, 2005.
7
Ordinance No. 2005-
Page 8
PASSED AND ADOPTED on second reading this 7'h day of June, 2005.
SUSAN GOTTLIEB, MAYOR
ATTEST:
TERESA M. SOROKA, CMC
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
CITY ATTORNEY
8
Weiss Serota. Helfm.anPastoriza
F""',",",.,""" ".." '. '"
Guedes.Çolë&Boniske,P.A, .
Me1110
To:
Mayor and Commissioners
From: David M, Wolpin
Date: April 8, 2005
Re:
Potential Moratorium
I.
Introduction
The City Commission has requested that we research and prepare a legal opinion on the
feasibility of enacting, via ordinance, a temporary moratorium upon the issuance of development
orders and development permits within the City, Accordingly, the purpose of this Memorandum
is to examine the feasibility of imposing a moratorium and to discuss the applicable legal issues
so that the City Commission may determine whether or not to request that we prepare a proposed
moratorium ordinance for consideration by the City Commission.
II.
Baclæround of Moratorium Concept
Recently, the United States Supreme Court endorsed the use of temporary moratoria as a
growth management tool of local government. In Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S, 302, 122 S, Ct. 1465, 152 LEd 2d 517 (2002), the
United States Supreme Court found that a temporary moratorium imposed by a regional planning
agency to maintain the status quo while studying the impact of development on Lake Tahoe and
formulating a strategy for assuring environmentally sound growth, was not itself a taking of
private property rights.
Although moratoria have been used as a tool of growth management by local
goverrunents for many years, there was a substantial time period during which several attempted
moratoria in Florida were stricken down by the Courts for defects in procedure or process, See
City ofSanibel v. Buntrock, 409 So.2d 1073 (Fla, 2d DCA 1981), review denied, 417 So.2d 328;
City of Gainesville v. GNV Investments, 413 So.2d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Franklin County v.
Leisure Properties, Ltd, 430 So.2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), review denied, 440 So.2d 352 (Fla.
1983),
An example of a recent Florida appellate court opinion in which a local goverrunent
moratorium was upheld is the case of WCI Communities, Inc. v. City of Coral Springs, 885 So.2d
912 (4th DCA 2004), in which the Court upheld a nine month moratorium during which the City
studied and adopted new multi-family zoning regulations governing setbacks, building shape,
parking, sidewalks and landscaping, However, even before the LaM Tahoe or Coral Springs cases,
many courts throughout the nation had upheld temporary moratorium ordinances.!
Prior to the LaM Tahoe case, the landmark case which had been frequently cited as setting
forth the prerequisites to the valid exercise of the moratorium power, is the case of Almquist v. Town
1/ More importantly, the City of Aventura has a history of successfully imposing moratorium
ordinances for appropriate durations and purposes and has done so on three (3) occasions, including
Ordinance No. 96-12 (providing for initial six month moratorium on billboards pending completion
of the City's billboard regulations); Ordinance No. 97-22 (providing for initial six month
moratorium in marina area and hospital area pending completion of the City's fITst Comprehensive
Plan) and Ordinance No. 98-20 (providing six month initial moratorium on residential buildings
over a specified height).
2
of Marshan, 245 N.W.2d 819 (Minn. 1976). In a scholarly opinion upholding a moratorium, the
Minnesota Supreme Court in Almquist identified the five prerequisites to valid moratoria, including:
1.
The moratorium ordinance must be adopted in good faith;
2.
The moratorium ordinance must not be discriminatory;
3.
The moratorium ordinance must be of limited duration;
4.
The moratorium ordinance must be appropriate to the development of a
comprehensive zoning plan; and
5,
The city council must act promptly to adopt the plan.
See Paul R. Gougelman, Moratoria and Interim Growth Management, Florida Environmental and
Land Use Law, Section 5 (January, 1994).1
The Courts recognize that the purpose of a moratorium is to enable a local govemment to
maintain the status quo while regulations are being developed and implemented to address and
remedy a problem which poses a threat to the public health, safety and welfare. The justification for
creating a moratorium is to assure the effectiveness of new regulations which are to be developed.
The legal concept is that if uses which are contrary to new regulations are allowed to be commenced
during the period in which such new regulations are actively developed and implemented, the
purpose of the new regulations may be defeated. In short, lawful moratoriums are intended to
2/ In Almquist, the town of Marshan, an agricultural community, imposed a six month development
moratorium when faced with several proposals for the widespread conversion of farm acreage into
single family development. Faced with the specter of a drastic change in the nature of the
community, and the inability of the community to provide infrastructure and services which would
be demanded by a conversion from the low impact agricultural use to the high impact and demand
of extensive residential development, which would change the very nature of the rural community,
the town of Marshan implemented a six month moratorium on development pending the adoption of
a comprehensive zoning plan.
3
address and prevent the problem of "locking the stable after the horse is stolen". See Downham v.
City Council of Alexandria, 58 F.2d 784, 788 (E.D.Wa.1932),
Once a significant problem is identified and a study of the remedy for the problem is in
progress, there is ample justification for a moratorium as being necessary to preserve the status quo.
One of the key requirements for adoption of a moratorium is that there be an identification of an
existing problem wruch is within the authority of local government to solve or attempt to solve and
of the necessity and means to develop remedial measures to address such problem, As noted in
"Moratoria and Interim Growth Management":
Before drafting a moratorium ordinance, the practitioner should
determine exactly what the City or County is trying to accomplish.
A simple reaction to the problem is to institute a moratorium on the
issuance of building permits. A better approach is to examine what
the City or County is trying to encourage, discourage, and achieve
and to determine precisely what type of moratorium is needed. (Page
5-4),
It is further observed that:
A proper relationsrup between a moratorium and a growth
management problem can exist if the moratorium is put into effect to
study the growth management problem and a good faith effort is
made to find solutions and enact remedial ordinances. Virtually
every case of a development permit moratorium involves a local
government enacting a moratorium to stop conditions from getting
4
out of control while a study committee examines a growth
management problem and proposes remedial ordinances, (Page 5-
23).
ill.
Study Is Underway
It must be recognized that a moratoriwn is simply a means for maintaining the status quo
while problems are studied and remedial measures are developed and implemented, A moratoriwn
is not an end result It is simply a plaruring tool intended to serve as a means to facilitate the
achieving of a desired end result.
Presently, within the City, a growth management study is already underway in the fonD of
the presently in progress evaluation and appraisal report (nEARn) work for the update of the City's
Comprehensive Plan in accordance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. It is expected that the EAR
will be completed by December, 2005, pursuant to the City's contract with the City's planning
consultants. A key component of the EAR is to study existing and anticipated growth management
problems and to help develop remedial amendments to the Còmprehensive Plan and to the Land
Development Regulations. The City has previously identified the following major issues that will be
addressed during the EAR process:
. Development and Redevelopment
. Housing
. Emergency Management
Transportation
. Intergovernmental Coordination
Quality of Life
5
IV,
Pro1>osed Moratorium Parameters
It is our opinion that if the Commission decides to do so as a matter of discretionary
legislative policy, it is feasible to impose a moratorium in order to enable the Commission to study
the pertinent issues and to detennine whether to enact additional growth management regulations.
If the City Commission determines that it is necessary to institute a moratorium, after consulting
with the City Manager it is recommended that the moratorium be focused upon the study and
formulation of remedial measures related to the following areas which need to be addressed during
the EAR process:
(I)
Traffic Concurrency;
The Town Center land use designation;
(2)
(3)
Redevelopment Guidelines;
Building Height; and
(4)
(5)
Emergency Management.
In addition, the moratorium should be COnfIDed to development on any property located east
of Biscayne Boulevard in all areas which are zoned residential or zoned commercial. The
moratorium may be imposed for an initial term of six (6) months in order to enable substantial
completion of the major work of the EAR and the formulation of remedial measures, Further, staff
also recommends that the moratorium should not apply to:
1.
any public purpose project which is required by any government entity; and
2.
any office buildings of a height which does not exceed ten (10) stories; and
6
3.
any development for which a building pennit or any required site plan approval
has been issued prior to the imposition of this moratorium;3 and
4.
any development which is protected from a change in municipal ordinances to the
extent provided by Section 163.3233, Florida Statutes, for those statutory
development agreements which have been previously entered into; and
5.
the construction, renovation or improvement of (i) individual single family
homes; or (ii) retail or office space within the confines of existing buildings; or
(iii) non-occupiable structures, including signs, cable television or
telecommunication facilities; and
6.
work for the decoration of the exterior of an existing structure or for the
improvement of the interior of existing dwelling units; and
7.
improvements authorized by administratively approved amendments to site plans
referenced in paragraph (3) above, so long as said improvements do not increase
the intensity or density of development Dr adversely impact traffic conditions; and
8.
community facilities listed in Sec. 31-147(a)(1) of the City Code which constitute
a permitted or conditional use in the proposed location.
Accordingly, after research of the pertinent legal issues, it is our opinion that it is feasible to declare
and impose a moratorium upon the issuance of development orders and development permits based
on the parameters which are described above.
v.
Status of Development within the City
In determining the feasibility and scope of a potential moratorium, we are mindful of the
development status of the City, The City is presently almost essentially developed. Accordingly,
any moratorium must be tailored to achieve growth management goals which are feasible. Much of
the remaining undeveloped portions of the City have previously been granted approvals by Miami-
3/ Imposition of a moratorium upon development which has already received building permits
or any required site plan approval may render the moratorium vulnerable to judicial challenge.
7
Dade County, prior to the creation of the City in 1995. Accordingly, pursuant to the Land
Development Regulations (the "LDRs") of the City, those undeveloped parcels that obtained vested
rights from the County and complied with the vested rights application requirements of the LDRs
are protected by Vested Rights Agreements which have been issued pursuant to City Code Section
31-3(b).4 The presently remaining undeveloped parcels within the City which are governed by
Vested Rights Agreements under City Code Section 31-3(b) include:
L
Tumberry U Site at Yacht Club Way and East Country Club Drive;
2.
Phase II of The Peninsula on NE 183 Street;
3.
The 4100 site on Williams Island.
While the use and development of private property is generally subject to compliance with
the body of government regulations, as those regulations change from time to time, the Cow1s have
long recognized an exception to the strict application of changed laws, under the doctrine of
eqwtable estoppel or vested rights.
The doctrine of vested rights operates to limit a local
government's exercise of its zoning powers and imrnwúzes a development from subsequently
enacted zoning laws, when applicable. In order for this legal doctrine to apply and for vested rights
to be established, a property owner must demonstrate that:
a.
relying in good faith;
b.
upon some act or omission of the local government;
c,
the property owner has made such a substantial change in position or incurred such
extensive obligations and expenses that it would be highly inequitable and
4/ The City has successfully used these vested rights agreements as a means of narrowing
down or limiting those vested rights which developers previously had obtained from Miami-
Dade County prior to the creation of the City.
8
manifestly unjust to pennit the government to destroy the rights of the property
owner by applying a subsequent regulation,
See, Town of Largo v. Imperial Homes Corporation, 309 So.2d 571 (Fla, 2d DCA 1975); Monroe
County v. Ambrose, 866 So.2d 707 (Fla, 3d DCA 2004). When equitable estoppel applies, rights
are treated as vested and protected, City Code Section 31-3(b)(2) is specifically founded upon this
equitable estoppel- vested rights concept.
VI.
Other Essential In2I"edients of Moratorium Ordinance
AI1.y moratorium ordinance should contain two provisions which are essential to assuring
that the ordinance does not operate in an unlawful manner. Those two provisions are:
1.
a vested rights provision; and
2,
a waiver provision.
The pwpose of a vested rights provision is to make sure that a proposed moratorium does
not UIÙawfully cut off or impair vested rights or rights protected by equitable estoppel. The
destruction of vested rights may subject the municipality to monetary liability under Florida law as
well as under federal law.
The pwpose of a waiver provision is to assure that, during the course of any moratorium,
waivers for development permits may be given, subject to appropriate procedures, for those projects
which are not inconsistent with the proposed regulations to be developed. In short, if a proposed
use is not inconsistent with the regulations which are being developed or does not create the type of
problem which the proposed regulations are intended to address, then there is no valid reason to
subject such property to a moratorium, A waiver enables a hannless project to proceed. A waiver
provision is created in recognition that the imposition of a moratorium which is done with a net so
9
broad that it captures items which do not pose the risk intended to be addressed by the new
regulations, may be challenged as an W1lawful moratorium wmch does not serve the public health,
safety or welfare.
Each of the three prior moratoria ordinances of the City had both a vested rights provision
and a waiver provision. Inclusion of such provisions helps to avoid the judicial invalidation of the
moratorium.
VIL
Other Issues.
A.
In preparing this Memorandum, we have examined whether the imposition of a
moratorium would serve to enable an effective rate of growth ordinance approach (the "ROGO") to
be adopted as a lawful means of delaying the implementation of development wmch is protected by
vested rights. ROGO ordinances attempt to set an annual cap on the quantity of new square footage
of development. Our law firm has been involved in the implementation of ROGO for certain
municipalities in Monroe County. However, those areas in Monroe County are subject to illÙque
statutory provisions as an area of critical state concern under Sec. 380.0552, F,S., and to special
Florida Department of Community Affairs (the "DCA") oversight arising from Comprehensive Plan
review proceedings related to hurricane evacuation issues. Sec. 380.0552, F,S., is predicated on the
unique envirorunental status of the Florida Keys. That specific statutory authorization and the
special State DCA oversight is not applicable to the developed urban envirorunent of Miami-Dade
County of wmch the City is a vibrant part. Further, the Monroe County ROGO program respects
vested rights. See, Ambrose, supra. Although ROGO does not serve as an absolute formula for
curtailing or delaying vested rights, its potential utilization as a component of remedial measures
may be further studied,
10
B.
Additionally, we have examined whether the 1995 enactment by the Florida
legislature of the Private Property Rights Protection Act (the "Bert Harris Act") creates any
impediment to any proposed moratorium. The Bert Harris Act protects private property fÌ'om an
interference which is short of a "taking" but constitutes an "inordinate burden", In an article
published in the Florida Bar Journal, shortly after creation of the Bert Harris Act, Jane Hayman,
then serving as Deputy General Counsel for the Florida League of Cities, astutely cautioned that:
Cities and counties in Florida must take a second look at how they
regulate and impact land, Some local governments will engage in
extensive fiscal impact analysis prior to promulgating any new land
development regulations to avoid litigation under the Harris Act,
Other local governments will make adjustments to the impact of
newly promulgated regulations as claims are filed by land owners,
And other local governments may simply refuse to make land use
changes or may litigate. It is also expected Ch. 95-181 will increase
public confusion concerning preservation of private property rights,
require cities and counties to adjust existing local zoning and
development approval and appeal processes, and incur additional
administrative expense, promote costly litigation, and further
encumber our already overburdened system, See 70 Fla. Bar J.
(January, 1996),
Those early warnings have proven to generally be correct and the Bert Harris Act has impacted
certain municipal decisions. See, Royal World Metropolitan, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 863
11
So.2d 320 (Fla3d DCA 2004); rev. denied (Fla. Feb. 08, 2005) (holdÙlg that sovereign inununity
does not bar a Bert Hams Act claim),
However, the Bert Hams Act defines an "inordinate burden" as one that is pennanent and
not merely a temporary impact. A moratoriwn, by its very nature, is a temporary measure, In
assessing the feasibility and scope of any potential moratoriwn, we have been guided by the
recognition that any moratoriwn must be confined to serving a purpose which is within the scope of
the City's authority and serves to facilitate the remediation of a growth management problem, while
respecting private property rights, Accordingly, any impact of the Bert Hams Act would be further
examined at the time that any new pennanent growth management regulations are fonnulated.
VTIL Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons indicated above, if the City Commission decides to request us
to prepare a proposed moratoriwn ordinance for consideration by the City Commission, we would
recommend that the moratoriwn ordinance be confined to enabling the study and development of
growth management regulations pertaining to the items enwnerated in Section IV above, as part of
the pending EAR process, and that the moratoriwn shall contain the waiver and vested rights
protection provisions,
Please advise us if there are any questions on this matter.
Cc:
Eric M. Soroka, City Manager
Joanne Carr, Planning Director
Nancy Stroud, Esq.
F:/328.001/MemosiClean Potential Moratonum 3.30.05
12
CITY OF AVENTURA
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
City Commission d
Eric M. Soroka. ICMA'CMtfr a ..
April 8, 2005
Pending Development Summary
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
In order to assist the City Commission in their deliberations regarding the potential
moratorium, the attached document outlines a summary of pending developments. The
list does not include projects that have obtained a building permit.
The summary categories projects are as follows:
1. Projects with Site Plan Approval and Vested Rights Agreement.
2. Projects with Vested Rights Agreements.
3. Projects with Development Agreements.
4. Projects with Site Plan Approval.
5. . Application filed with the City without Site Plan Approval.
6. Vacant land, no application on file.
7. Potential redevelopment sites whereby owners have made inquiries with
the City,
A review of the summary will be presented at the April 21, 2005 Workshop Meeting. If
you have any questions, please feel free to contact me,
EMS/act
Attachment
cc:
David Wolpin, Esq., City Attorney
Joanne Carr, Planning Director
CCO1337-05
CITY OF AVENTURA
Pending Development Summary
PROJECTS WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND VESTED RIGHTS
AGREEMENTS
1. Minto Communities Condominiums (Williams Island)
RMF4 Zoning District
4100 Island Blvd
2. Peninsula Condominiums Phase 2
RMF4 Zoning District
3251 NE 183 Street
3. Villa Flora Town Homes (Williams Island)
RMF4 Zoning District
1500 Island Blvd
PROJECTS WITH VESTED RIGHTS AGREEMENTS
1. Turnberry Village Shops
RMF4 Zoning District
East Country Club and Yacht Club Way
2. Two Islands
RS2
Williams Island
PROJECTS WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
1 Aventura Landings
RMF4 Zoning District
NE 28 Court and Miami Gardens Drive
PROJECTS WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL
1. Hochstein and Kane Medical Office Building
MO Zoning District
21420 Biscayne Blvd.
2. Aventura Business Center
OP Zoning District
NE 30 Avenue between NE 209 Street and NE 210 Street
3. Aventura Corporate Center Phase 3
OP Zoning District
NE 30 Avenue between Waterways Blvd and NE 209 Street
4. 3030 at Aventura
3030 NE 188 Street
5. Uptown Express "Artech Residences"
RMF3A & B Zoning Districts
3020 NE 188 Street
6. The Atrium at Aventura
RMF3B Zoning District
3131 NE 188 Street
7. Embassy Suites
B2 Zoning District
18651 Biscayne Blvd
8. Aventura Medical Arts Building
MO Zoning District
Biscayne Blvd and NE 211 Street
APPLICATIONS ON FILE
WITHOUT SITE PLAN APPROVAL
1. Aventura Professional Tower (Embassy Suites Revision)
B2 Zoning District
18651 Biscayne Blvd.
2. Lincoln Pointe Redevelopment
RMF4 Zoning District
17900 NE 31 Court
3. Aventura Corporate Center Phase 4
OP Zoning District
20808 Biscayne Blvd
4. Tauber School Expansion (Community Facilties)
B2 Zoning District
20400 NE 30 Avenue
5. The Bay Club Redevelopment
(The Parc Central Aventura Tower III)
RMF4 Zoning District
3300 NE 191 Street and 192 Street
6. Isla Del Sol (Canal behind Berlin Park)
CNS District
3560 NE 207 Street
2
VACANT LAND
NO APPLICATION ON FILE
1. Six Acre Site at end of 188th Street
OP Zoning District
3250 NE 188 Street
2. Various vacant lots in the Medical Office District
MO District
3. Gulfstream
B2 and MO Zoning Districts
Biscayne Blvd and NE 213 Street
4. Turnberry Parcel at the Mall
B2 Zoning
Biscayne Blvd and Aventura Blvd
5. Turnberry Parcels on Biscayne
B2 Zoning
Biscayne Blvd and NE 203 Street
6. Vacant land on Waterways Blvd
B2 Zoning
Waterways Blvd and NE 30 Avenue
POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT SITES WHEREBY OWNERS
HAVE MADE INQUIRES WITH CITY
1. Suntrust Bank
B2 Zoning District
Aventura Blvd and W, Country Club Dr.
2. The Waterways Shops
B2 Zoning District
3565 NE 207 Street
3. Hi Lift Marina
TC2 Zoning District
2890 NE 187 Street
4. Coscan Sales Center
RMF4 Zoning District
3750 Yacht Club Drive
3
-------- --,------- -,-- ~~--- -~--
, .
gi
i-
8"
¡i
II
t§
Ii
,t
~
1~
If
.¡
s,
I!
'1
I,
~.
i
I
1
¡
ì
I
t 0
q
I
L
! 8
¡
!
! N
! 8
~
i
f
; 8
I
;
~
i 8
#:
~ A
'(Jf¡
m. ~ /1#
.~
¡
i
!II
.
8
MDFR Service Provided to the Municipality of AVENTURA (FY 1999 through 2003)
.
"Œ
"T1
134
,
¿ooJ
2002
1
1
Number of Alarms
~
~
I
44i
."
,
1
Aventura
~
9ll
64
,
2003
2m
2Oß
"šm
Wi
š1õ
m
m
5.43
I99f
¡ravel Time AV~
:TIme in Minutes and oods
1st Disp Dt to 1st Arrv Dt A VG
1st Dt to 1st Arrv Dt A VG Ljfe
1st Dt to 1st Arrv Dt AVG tØ1.Ljfe
1st Dt to 1st Arrv Dt A VG Other Fire
1st Dt to 1st Arrv Dt AVG Other MisœIaneoos
1st DisD Dt to 1st Arrv Dt A VG Structure Fires
rn
5:i
57t
5.1.
5.~
3.53
5.11
454
m
~
5.27
45
4.5
4.3
rï
4:2
m
m
5.22
m
5.58
4:š6
~
450
E
EI
2003
s:s
rn
IT
13
2002
5.39
4lš
m
m
2001
5.35
rn
m
rn
2000
5]
41i
4Ji
m
1999
s:
,.,
š:ï
1".
._Ut
A'ttfI:;:m
'ttfIWra
--r--~~---,-r-_._---,.. ~
CITY OF AVENTURA
,x4Z11!-u)
Lf"-..#4J .,..
~7
.sþj!Õ
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
City Commission . -£8'
Eric M. Soroka, ICMA-CMr~y (anag r
May 3, 2005
Emergency Services Response
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
This memorandum is intended to respond to the request of members of the City
Commission to address the Police and Fire Service response times and access to the
Williams Island area.
BACKGROUND
The City of Aventura's Land Development Regulations require that before a site plan for
any development is approved, emergency access issues must be reviewed by the City
Police Department and the County Fire Rescue Department (MDFR). Both agencies
are required to review and approve the site plan.
It should be understood that the City Charter requires the City to utilize the Miami-Dade
County Fire Rescue Department to provide fire and rescue services to the City.
The City Commission and Administration has always taken the provision of emergency
services to our residents very seriously. It has been a priority to ensure the safety of
our residents and provide the best emergency services available. As the City has
grown, every effort has been made to make the necessary adjustments to respond to
the growth in terms of emergency services. This can be witnessed by the following
facts:
1.
The number of sworn police officers and police service aides has increased
over the years to reflect the increase in population. For example, the number
of sworn officers has increased from 49 in 1997 to 76 in 2005. As part of the
preparation of the upcoming budget, it will include additional police and traffic
personnel to respond to increases in population and traffic. The City currently
enjoys one of the lowest crime rates. Despite the growth in population and
development, the City's crime rate has decreased over the past five years.
2.
The City is currently served by two fire stations. Based on the urging of the
City, in 1999 the Miami-Dade County Fire Rescue Department added the
second Rescue Unit Station No. 33 located at Point East to respond to
increase demands.
3.
In 2001, the police department began operating on its own 800 MHz Radio
system. Information is now dispatched directly to the patrol car from the
Aventura dispatch center.
4.
Messaging - All police cars are equipped with laptop computers and GPS
systems. All on-duty patrol cars can be sent information simultaneously and
the closest unit can respond to a call.
5.
Roadway signals - The Traffic Unit and City work with Miami-Dade Public
Works Signs and Signals to improve traffic flow throughout Aventura. They
prepare traffic engineering studies, recommend roadway improvements and
suggest traffic light synchronization times.
6.
Roadway improvements - Major roadways have been redesigned to comply
with safety standards which include guardrails, medians, wide lanes and
drainage. Both roadways into Williams Island have been improved.
Williams Island Emerqencv Response Plan
There has been concern expressed about the ability of emergency vehicles to respond
to calls in the Williams Island neighborhood. The Aventura Police Department and the
Miami-Dade Fire Department work in conjunction to provide emergency responses to
Williams Island.
There are two main roadways that provide access to Williams Island: Route A and
Route B (See diagram I attached). Route A is NE 183rd Street (Williams Island Blvd)
which can be accessed from Biscayne Blvd, Jack Smith Road or NE 31 Avenue. Route
B is NE 31 Avenue with access via NE 18ih Street to NE 28th Court, to 185th Street.
Police dispatchers coordinate information from witnesses, Police Officers and Fire-
Rescue personnel and advise via radio, laptop or telephone any special travel
conditions. When any of the following conditions exist, emergency personnel respond
accordingly.
1. Obstructions
If there are no roadway obstructions, emergency vehicles will take the most
expeditious route to Williams Island.
If Route A should become obstructed from an accident or other obstruction,
emergency vehicles will be directed into Williams Island from Route B.
2
If Route B should become obstructed, emergency vehicles will be directed into
Williams Island from Route A.
2. Accidents
There is a small portion of NE 183rd Street where there is only one lane
eastbound and one lane westbound. This area is just east of the tree canopy and
runs alongside Little Maule Lake. Should an accident occur at this location
vehicles would not be able to pass. If the accident is in the eastbound lane,
emergency vehicles will respond either by using the westbound lanes or using
Route B. Traffic exiting Williams Island will be directed to use Route B. If the
accident is in the westbound lane, emergency vehicles will respond using Route
A. Again, traffic exiting Williams Island will be directed to use Route B. (See
attached diagram 11.)
3. Evacuations
In the event that Williams Island must be evacuated, the plan will be to direct
vehicles to use both Route A and Route B. If the roadways cannot handle the
volume of traffic exiting the island, all four lanes of Route B will be opened for
vehicles to exit. Should conditions warrant, all traffic lanes on both routes can be
opened for outbound traffic only (See attached diagram III)
Miami-Dade County Fire Rescue Response Time
I contacted Pedro Bas, who is the Division Chief for the Miami Dade County Fire
Rescue for the Northeast Dade area. He was very familiar with the Aventura area and
the William Island area due to fact the fact that he served on the fire rescue vehicles in
the City for numerous years.
I asked him to provide an analysis of the response time in the City and to the Williams
Island area. Response times for Fire Rescue calls are determined in two ways. One,
the time involved from the 911 call into dispatch to first arrival of a unit The second
study is the time involved from traveling from the fire station to the arrival of the first
unit.
Although data for the first study was reviewed it includes the dispatch process which
can account for up to two minutes or more in the response time. The county average in
this regard, is about 8-9 minutes. The City average response time is about 6-8 minutes.
This average is the same for the William Island area. The second study reviewed travel
time averages. This study area was more meaningful because it addressed the traffic
impact on response time.
The MDFR provided the following chart which breaks down calls over a five year period.
The travel time for life threatening emergencies in the City has not increased
significantly in the five year period and is below the County average. The travel time to
structure fires in the City has actually been lowered by one minute during the five year
period. According to MDFR, the City average data is the same for the Williams Island
3
area. The Division Chief has advised the response times in Aventura are among the
best in the County.
MDFR Service Provided to the Municipality of AVENTURA (FY 1999 through 2003)
Number of Alarms I 191111 2000 20"1 002 2003 I
I i
AlanYl Record Count IAventul'll 3632 3835 417t 3975
AlanYl Record nt lUll> Threateni"" Eml'l'Ol'!Y'ies 202~ 149 22M 2071
AlanYl Record Count Non-UII> Threateni!1Q Emerœncies 1093 1095 U55 1216
AlanYl Recora Count UtIler Hres 4 41 6; J<, 4
AlanYl Recora LOUOt Other Misœlaneous 441 534 5bl 643 921
AlanYl Record Count Structure Fires n 16 24 10
Travel Time Averages 1!11111 2000 2001 2002 2003
,me in Minutes and seconds
1st D1S6 Dt to 1st ArrV Dt AV... 5.22 4.54 5.02 5.11 5 1
1st DIsoDt to 1st Arrv Dt AVG lifI! Threatenina Emeroendes 5.04 4.38 4.47 4.54 5.1
1st D1S6 at to 1st Arrv DtAVG Non-UII> Threatenina E 5.58 5.19 5.20 5.32 5.4
1st Dig) Dt to 1st Arrv Dt AV(; Other Fire 4.56 4.22 4.55 4.08 5.1
1st Diso Dt to 1st Arrv Dt AVG Other Misœlaneous 5.23 5.12 5.21 5.27 5.
1st Disp Ot to 1st Arrv Dt AVG Structure Fires 4.50 4.31 5.43 4.52 3.53
Comoanson Deœrtment and the MunlCÎoalitv of Aventura
Travel Time Averaaes r ,me in Minutes and Seoomls
19911 2000 2001 2002 2003
lueœrtment Ute Threateni"" Emeroencies 5.j, 5. 5.5 5.3'i 5.55
,Department IStructure Fires 4.1.7 4. 4, 4.28 4.31
Avenbn lUte Emerœndes 5.04 4. 4.47 4.54 5.1
Avenbn lwucture Fires 4.50 4. 1 5.4 4.52 3.53
MDFR continues to implement new systems including Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)
in order to improve response times
Aventura Police Department Response Times
The police department researched response times to emergency calls for service to
determine if service levels have changed over the past five years. For the Williams
Island area, response times have improved or remained the same. The chart below
shows the number of emergency calls for service, by year, and the length of time it took
for police officers to arrive.
Williams Island
Response Times to Emergency Calls for Service
1sr Quarter Year to Year
<2 2 3 4 5 >5
Minutes Minutes Minutes Minutes Minutes Minutes
2001 6 3 3 4 1 2
2002 4 1 0 0 0 1
2003 9 1 2 2 0 3
2004 11 2 4 0 1 0
2005 12 3 3 4 1 1
4
In order to keep response times at an acceptable level based on the future growth of
the City, a number of improvements are in the process of being implemented.
. Traffic Video Monitoring System - The City has been working with FDOT on a
joint project to install a traffic video monitoring system along Biscayne Blvd. The
first phase of the project will place video cameras at the intersection of Biscayne
Blvd and Miami Gardens Drive. There will be three cameras at this location and
they will be capable of monitoring Miami Gardens Drive, Williams Island Road,
Jack Smith Blvd and sites along Biscayne Blvd. A live camera feed of this area
will be posted on the FDOT website.
. Miami Gardens Drive extension - The City is coordinating a project with
developers and Miami-Dade County to build a roadway extension to Miami
Gardens Drive. The new roadway will extend east of Biscayne Blvd. into NE
185th Street and provide a new roadway into Williams Island.
. Additional law enforcement personnel - The upcoming City budget will include
additional police officers and public service aides positions in October to deal
with traffic related matters.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
EMS/act
CCO1346-05
5
n
n
~
~
C>
:=;
a
ë
(I)
"C
'0
0
«
"C
c:
rn
~
rJ)
E
S
í\
\1
II
Ii
II
Ii
\1
Ii
II
Ii
'.1
\:
\1
i\
\1
!i
.1 i
!ill
Iii
cl
\
g
0 1
;? ~
1>
~
,.
.
§
:5 ~
.., "
I
l
~
~ I
Ii
!
~ e
:.'" "I: i
~ :"';'. ',,;, 0 ~
= ~~!t:i,~~: !
1"'" :
Ë
.~
i"
ii
~g
~~
"
H
¡¡!
.~
1io
~1
H
~~
j~
î~
if
~¡
H
U
~8
U
00
-<
2J
&
C
'Na'-': ...-
il .....
¡
!
I
,
i
i
IIn; uc ~vw '>VOl v~,.v." ~"U"'" u ~u""1 "",
"". ".. ~--w...~.
f-Ã~'
LAW OffiCES
SHUBIN & BASS
"10'15$10IIAI
ASSOCIAflOIl
Via Facsimile Transmission
Ana u.s. Hail
May 2, 2005
Mr. Eric Soroka
City Manager
City of Aventura
19200 West country
Aventura, FL 33180
Club Drive
Re:
City of Aventura/Proposed Moratorium
Dear City Manager Soroka:
This correspondence is intended to respond to the City of
Aventura's request for a legal opinion regarding the propriety of a
proposed temporary moratorium upon the issuance of development
orders and development perndts within the City. Specifically, this
firm was asked to provide the City with an analysis which would
supplement a memorandum provided to the City by its counsel, David
Wolpin, on April 8, 2005. In connection with this request, our
firm was provided with a copy of Mr. Wolpin's memorandum as well as
copies of certain Vested Rights Determination Agreement(s)
previously entered into by the City and referenced in the
memorandum.
Having reviewed these materials, this firm would concur with
the analysis set forth in the memorandum and conclude that,
assuming that the basis of the moratorium is to await the study and
formulation of measures which may be addressed during the ongoing
"EAR process', the enactment of the moratorium would be proper, As
noted in the memorandum, Florida courts have recently endorsed the
use of a moratorium by a municipality while it undertook a
"thorough analysis' of its Comprehensive Plan and addressed certain
other infrastructure and concurrency issues. WCI Communities, Inc.
v. C'ity of Coral Springs, 685 So. :ad 912 (Fla. 4<" DCA 2004).
The memorandum further identifies certain categories of
proposed development to which the moratorium should not apply
(i.e., which should be exempted from the moratorium). This firm
would concur that the exception of these categories would best
46 S.W. 1st Street, 3n1 Floor, Miami, FL JJ130 Ph: 305'381-6060 Fx: 305-381-9457 www.shublnba".com
nHi-U~-~')U~ IIUI1 U~'lð rtI ~nuo," Q Od", t,n,
¡no ilV, OWOV'VN'
protect the City from potential litigation arising out of any
evantual enactment of the moratorium. Because the judicial
resolution of these typ~s of issues is particularly fact sansitive,
it is always difficult to conclude that any category identified for
exemption may not be overinclusive and, therefore, may exempt
certain properties which may not actually posseßs vested rights.
Although such policy issues are squarely within the purview of the
Commission in the exercise of its legislative powers, I wOllld
advise you that the risks of being overinclusive (and potentially
thwarting alleged vested rights) are far greater than those
presented by recognizing potential vested rights.
I will be present at your future deliberations on this issue
and will gladly make myself available to address any questions you
might have regarding this correspondence on the underlying issues
set forth herein.
Sincerely,
~~~-SU-
John K. Shubin
For the firm
Co:
Mayor Susan Gottlieb
Commissioner Harry Holzberg
Commissioner Michael Stern
Commissioner Bob biamond
Commissioner Billy Joel
Commissioner Zev Auerbach
Commissioner Luz Weinberg
SHUBIN & BASS. P.A
;:Moratorium NOW! .Petition Card - Sign and Return Today!
I, the undersigned, petition the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Aventura, Florida to adopt and place into immediate
effect an unqualified TEMPORARY BUILDING MORATORIUM that restricts in whole, or in part, the constr~ction or rehabilitation of
any building in the City of Aventura, including the issuance of any site plan approvals or building permits, until the Mayor and City
Commission receive, review, and approve an Independent Expert's Assessment Report that discloses whether the City's infrastructure
is capable of meeting the growing traffic and other. demands of our rapid development and if not, to consider, modify, and process for
, adoption the implementation of regulations pertaining to all zoning districts as well as to evaluate the extent of which those
existing laws are effectively implementing the Comprehensive Plan.
Annette Goldstein
Name (please print)
20500 W Country Club Dr Apt 319
Address
~a~~
0 I will attend the May 3rd City Commission meeting.
. Please contact me with more details.
;,~~~e contact me about volunteering for Moratorium NOW!
Aventura FL 33180-1619
City. State. liP
7~i~~n:;) 4 ~ ~ - q 55' c1-
Daytime phone (optional)
~
Annette Goldstein
Apt319
20500 W Counlry Club Dr
Aventura FL 33180
1-
III~I
--
',iCe",n.aa""
BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
FIRST CLASS MAIL PERMIT NO. 207 HIALEAH. FL
POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BV ADDRESSEE
MORATORIUM NOW! COMMITTEE
CIO DODD PRINTERS INC
7550 W 2 COURT
HIALEAH FL 33014-9907
1"11",11,1.1"",.,11,1"11,1,,1,1,,11,,,1,,,1,1,,11
----r ~._--_.-,-- ., .."...--
~hc :ßtiami *crat~ --
Published Dailv
MIAMI, FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DADE
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared:
MARIA ANGEL
Who on oath that she is
.
ADVERTISING OffICE MANAGER
Of the Miami Herald Publishing Company, a daily newspaper at Miami in Dade County,
Florida; that the advertisement for:
THE CITY OF A VENTURA
was published in said newspaper in the issue of:
APRIL 25TH 2005, MIAMI HERALD, PAGE 1SA
Affiant further says that the Miami Herald is a newspaper published at Miami, in the said
Dade County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously
published in said Dade County, Florida, each day and has been entered as second class
mail matter at the post office in Miami, in said Dade County, Florida, for a period of one
year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement.
J \ ,
'- CC' C" L.-l
M.A:RIA ¡;~---
r::tï-""--.
.USA"::~ i
I ~ - :1/1112008 ¡
; :\.."4I'.i __(800)432"254;
: ~Q"'J' FlondaNota'YA'sn,'oc;
;......~'::............,".......................
Sworn to and subscribed before me
This o? J1 day of ~
6S~~NA~
A.D. 2005
~oo Wðt 4Yth Street. Suite 50O. Hialeah, FL 33012
"","".,.......,
CITY OF AVENTURA
NOTICE OF HEARING OF LOCAL
PLANNING AGENCY AND NOTICE
OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND
DEVELOPMENT ORDER MORATORIUM
Public ~Jotice is hereby given that the City of Aventura
Local Planning Agency will meet in a public hearing on
Tuesday, May 3, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. to make a
recommendation regarding the adoption of the following
Ordinance: '
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AVENTURA,"
FLORIDA [THE "CITY"), PROVIDING FOR
IMPOSITION OF A MORATORIUM ON ISSUANCE
OF DEVELOPMENT ORDERS AND DEVELOPMENT
PERMITS WITHIN THE CITY CONCERNING
DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS PROPOSED ON
PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF BISCAYNE
BOULEVARD WITHIN ANY RESIDENTIAL OR
COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE "CITY;
PROVIDING FOR WAIVER, VESTED RIGHTS,
"APPEALS, EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES. APPLICABILITY, SEVERABILITY; AND"
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE:
(see map below for subject area which is bounded by
Biscayne Boulevard on the west and by the City limits
on the north, south and east)
bi-
~.
i\\v4\
tmmediately following the Local Planning Agency
meeting, the City Commission of the City of Aventura,
as governing body, will consider at a public hearing
adoption on first reading of the Ordinance.
The Public Hearing will be held at City of Aventura
Government Center, 192oo West Country Club Drive,
Aventura, Florida, 33180. The proposed Ordinance may
be inspected by the public at the Office of the City
Clerk, 19200 West Country Club Drive, Aventura,
Florida. Interested parties may appear at the Public
Hearing and be heard with respect to the proposed
Ordinance.
/
/
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990, all persons who are disabled and who need
special accommodations to participate in this
proceeding because of that disability should contact the
Office of the City Clerk, (305) 466-8901, not later than
two business days prior to such proceedings.
If a person decides to appeai any decision made by the
City Commission with respect to any matter considered
at a meeting or hearing, that person will need a record
of the proceedings and, for such purpose, may need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
Teresa M. Soro a, CMC, City Clerk