Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 121895
Printable PDF Format Download Adobe Reader  

File Number: 121895 File Type: Ordinance Status: Amended
Version: 0 Reference: Control: Board of County Commissioners
File Name: CDMP AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS OR ZONING APPLICATIONS Introduced: 9/20/2012
Requester: NONE Cost: Final Action:
Agenda Date: 1/23/2013 Agenda Item Number: 7B
Notes: REQUIRES 6WKS-4WKS; SEE 130212 FOR FINAL VERSION AS ADOPTED Title: ORDINANCE RELATING TO PLANNING AND ZONING; REQUIRING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO RETAIN JURISDICTION TO MODIFY OR DELETE COVENANTS OR DECLARATIONS OF RESTRICTIONS ACCEPTED IN CONNECTION WITH COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS OR ZONING APPLICATIONS, WHEN THE AREA THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE COVENANT OR DECLARATION OF RESTRICTION HAS BEEN ANNEXED OR INCORPORATED; AMENDING SECTION 20-26 AND CREATING SECTION 20-8.8 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA (“CODE”); PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Indexes: AMENDING CODE
  CDMP
Sponsors: Jose "Pepe" Diaz, Prime Sponsor
Sunset Provision: No Effective Date: Expiration Date:
Registered Lobbyist: None Listed


Legislative History

Acting Body Date Agenda Item Action Sent To Due Date Returned Pass/Fail

Board of County Commissioners 1/23/2013 7B Amended
REPORT: (See Agenda Item 7B Amended; Legislative File No. 130212 for the amended version.)

Infrastructure and Land Use Committee 12/12/2012 2C Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation P
REPORT: Assistant County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Chairwoman Jordan opened the floor for questions or comments from members of the Committee. Commissioner Diaz explained the intent of the item. He pointed out that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) reached agreements on covenants as a body usually after listening to hours of testimony. Yet, when a city annexed that particular area, the city had sole authority over the covenant. He gave the example of the City of Sweetwater noting that when the city took over a particular area, the developer behaved as if he was no longer bound by the terms of the covenant. Commissioner Monestime noted this was a good item; however, he inquired whether this item affected both annexations and incorporations. Assistant County Attorney Craig Coller confirmed that this item covered both annexations and incorporations. Chairwoman Jordan indicated that she supported the item and asked for clarification with regard to the Dolphin Mall. She asked if it was a Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Mr. Mark Woerner, Assistant Director, Metropolitan Planning, Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER), confirmed that the Dolphin Mall was a DRI. However, he clarified that the area to which Commissioner Diaz was referring was located between the Dolphin Mall and the International Mall. Commissioner Diaz said that the original purpose of this area was to make a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, but he was informed that it was controlled by the City of Sweetwater, and the owner did not have to abide by the covenant. He stated that the intent of the item was to ensure that the Board would retain the authority over the covenants. Chairwoman Jordan asked whether staff knew of any other situations in which the Board had lost the authority over covenants. Mr. Woerner indicated that only recently were Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) covenants accompanied by covenants. He noted RER had not analyzed all CDMP covenants that had been approved by the Board since 1988, but said that he would provide the results of the analysis at the next Board meeting. Chairwoman Jordan noted she supported this item because the Home Rule Charter governed the entire County and when the Board made a commitment, any subsequent annexations and incorporations would have to honor the commitments that were made to the community. Mr. Stephen Homestead, Planning Director, Village of Pinecrest, appeared before the Committee in opposition of the foregoing proposed ordinance, noting the residents of Pinecrest sent a letter to the Board asking that the item be denied. He said that although they understood that the item was well-intentioned, they were concerned that this would allow the Board to retain authority in a matter related to land use and development, which should be governed by the local governing body. Retention of jurisdiction by the Board would be contrary to the purpose of annexation which was to allow for more responsive, efficient and cost effective delivery of services at the local level, he pointed out. Mr. Homestead said that the residents of the Village of Pinecrest were concerned also that the developer could seek to obtain the authorization from the Board to amend covenants and restrictions after the annexation, even though this would not be in the best interest of the local government. Chairwoman Jordan noted she believed Mr. Homestead brought up a valid point. She said the covenants that the Board approved prior to the annexation should be honored; on the other hand, if a developer came to the Board after the annexation seeking to amend a covenant, then the decision should be made by the municipality. Commissioner Diaz noted although he agreed with Chairwoman Jordan the rules for amending covenants were stringent, and the agreements that had a future use should not be taken away from the residents lightly. Commissioner Jordan suggested that if the Board approved a deviation from the covenant that impacted the municipality, the developer should first obtain the approval of the municipality before it went into effect. She asked whether Commissioner Diaz would approve this friendly amendment. Assistant County Attorney Coller clarified that the concept was that the developer would have to seek the approval of the municipality first before coming to the Board to seek an amendment to a covenant. Commissioner Diaz said that he would work with the County Attorneys to amend the proposed ordinance before the next Board meeting. Chairwoman Jordan stressed that if the proposed change to the covenant would impact the municipality, the developer should obtain prior approval from the municipality before coming to the Board. Assistant County Attorney Coller advised that from a procedural point of view, the amendment would have to be approved by the commissioners on the floor. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Committee proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed ordinance, as presented.

Infrastructure and Land Use Committee 11/15/2012 Public hearing held and item deferred

Infrastructure and Land Use Committee 11/15/2012 1F6 Deferred to next committee meeting P
REPORT: Assistant County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Chairwoman Edmonson opened the public hearing on the foregoing proposed ordinance. Mr. Stephen Homestead, Planning Director for the Village of Pinecrest, appeared before the Committee in opposition of the foregoing proposed ordinance. He stated that the residents of the Village of Pinecrest were opposed to this item because they were concerned that it would allow the Board to retain authority in a matter related to land use and development that should be governed by the local governing body. Retention of jurisdiction by the Board would be contrary to the purpose of annexation which was to allow for more responsive, efficient and cost effective delivery of services at the local level, he pointed out. Mr. Homestead said that the residents of the Village of Pinecrest believed that local issues relative to planning and development were most effectively resolved by the local governing body of the jurisdiction in which the land use was located. Ms. Renita Holmes stressed that with all of the proposed land changes, it was crucial for local residents to obtain reliable data. She noted someone living on contaminated land who wanted to annex it, needed expert advice. She spoke in support of the proposed ordinance and asked that the Board retain jurisdiction because the process was open and transparent allowing the public to voice their concerns directly to the Board members through public hearings. Chairwoman Edmonson closed the public hearing after no one else appeared wishing to speak. Chairwoman Edmonson opened the floor for questions or comments from Committee members. She inquired whether the amended language on handwritten page 6 referred to annexation as well as incorporations. Assistant County Attorney Craig Coller explained that the County Attorneys created a new section 20-8.8 in Section 1 of the ordinance that dealt with municipal boundary change, which was another term for annexation; therefore, this item included both annexations and incorporations. Commissioner Jordan asked what would happen if covenants were placed on the property while it was part of unincorporated Miami-Dade County; would those covenants be subject to the jurisdiction of the new municipality if the property was annexed or became a municipality. Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel stated that this item would require that those covenants that were accepted by the Board stay within the Board’s jurisdiction. Commissioner Jordan asked the County Attorney to clarify whether those covenants that were put on the property when it was unincorporated would still fall under the Board’s jurisdiction and the Board members would decide whether to keep the restrictions in place. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel confirmed this, and explained that prior to this item all land use covenants would fall under the jurisdiction of the new municipality. Commissioner Barreiro noted the proposed ordinance was very broad and without the presence of the sponsor to explain the terms, he would prefer for the item to be deferred. Hearing no other questions or comments, the Committee members proceeded to vote on the deferral of the foregoing proposed ordinance.

Board of County Commissioners 10/10/2012 Municipalities notified of public hearing Infrastructure and Land Use Committee 11/15/2012 10/2/2012

Board of County Commissioners 10/2/2012 Tentatively scheduled for a public hearing Infrastructure and Land Use Committee 11/15/2012

Board of County Commissioners 10/2/2012 4H Adopted on first reading 11/15/2012 P
REPORT: First Assistant County Attorney Abigail Price-Williams read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. The foregoing proposed ordinance was adopted on first reading and set for public hearing before the Infrastructure and Land Use Committee on Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.

County Attorney 9/20/2012 Referred Infrastructure and Land Use Committee 11/15/2012

Board of County Commissioners 9/20/2012 Requires Municipal Notification Infrastructure and Land Use Committee 11/15/2012

County Attorney 9/20/2012 Assigned Dennis A. Kerbel 9/20/2012

Legislative Text


TITLE
ORDINANCE RELATING TO PLANNING AND ZONING; REQUIRING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO RETAIN JURISDICTION TO MODIFY OR DELETE COVENANTS OR DECLARATIONS OF RESTRICTIONS ACCEPTED IN CONNECTION WITH COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS OR ZONING APPLICATIONS, WHEN THE AREA THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE COVENANT OR DECLARATION OF RESTRICTION HAS BEEN ANNEXED OR INCORPORATED; AMENDING SECTION 20-26 AND CREATING SECTION 20-8.8 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA (“CODE”); PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

BODY

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Section 20-8.8 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby created to read as follows:
Sec. 20-8.8. – Retention of Modification or Deletion of Covenants or Declaration of Restrictions.

The Board of County Commissioners shall require, as a condition of municipal boundary change, that the Board retain jurisdiction over the modification or deletion of declarations of restrictive covenants accepted by either the Board or a Community Zoning Appeals Board in connection with a Comprehensive Development Master Plan application or zoning application, regardless of whether such declaration provides for modification or deletion by a successor governmental body.



Section 2. Section 20-26 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows: 1
Sec. 20-26. - Future Municipalities' Obligations to the County.
(a) As a condition of incorporation approved pursuant to Article V>>I<< of the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter, each new municipality shall include a provision in its charter and shall agree to remain a part of the Miami-Dade County Fire-Rescue District and the Miami-Dade County Library System in perpetuity.
(b) As a condition of incorporation approved pursuant to Article V>>I<< of the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter, each new municipality shall include a provision in its charter and shall agree in perpetuity to contract with the Miami-Dade County Police Department ("MDPD") and pay for specialized police services from its municipal millage or other municipal funds. For purposes of this subsection, specialized police services include, but are not limited to, narcotics, criminal intelligence, economic crimes, homicide, robbery, sexual crimes, environmental crimes, domestic crimes, and crime scene investigations; property and evidence efforts; tactical operations activities; and aviation patrol.
(c) As a condition of incorporation approved pursuant to Article V>>I<< of the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter, each new municipality shall include a provision in its charter and shall agree to contract with the Miami Dade County Police Department ("MDPD") and pay for local patrol police services for three years or such longer period of time as may be requested by the municipality.
(d) The fiscal impact of an incorporation on the remainder of the unincorporated area shall be revenue neutral; provided, however, any municipality which does not meet the foregoing requirement, as a condition of incorporation pursuant to Article V>>I<< of the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter, shall agree to make an annual mitigation payment to the County's Municipal Services Trust Fund in the Unincorporated Municipal Service Area Budget, the amount of which shall be determined by the Board of County Commissioners, in the event of a negative fiscal impact of the municipality's incorporation on the unincorporated area. For purposes of this subsection, "a revenue neutral municipality" is defined as an area that previously, as part of the unincorporated municipal service area, generated revenues equal to or less than the cost of services provided to the area by the County. Any annual mitigation amount determined by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph shall be established so as not to trigger "most-favored-nation-status" clauses which are contained in any municipal charter.
(e) As a condition of incorporation approved pursuant to Article V>>I<< of the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter, each new municipality shall include in its charter that such municipality shall be responsible for (i) its pro-rata share of any County debt outstanding at the time the municipality incorporates and with respect to the Stormwater Utility, outstanding at the time the municipality elects to be separate from the Stormwater Utility through an interlocal agreement or by exemption and (ii) its prorata share of any refunding of such debt. The municipality's annual pro-rata share of debt service shall be determined by multiplying the total debt service in each Fiscal Year by the municipality's percentage share of pledged revenues (revenues pledged by the County to the repayment of the debt). The municipality's percentage share shall be determined by dividing the pledged revenues collected within the municipality during the County's Fiscal Year in which municipality incorporates, and with respect to the Stormwater Utility in the Fiscal Year in which the municipality elects to separate from the Stormwater Utility district; by the total pledged revenues collected in that same Fiscal Year. It is further provided that the municipality's charter shall authorize the County to continue to collect and distribute the pledged revenues in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the debt and shall recognize the municipality's obligations pursuant to this subsection.
* * *
(g) As a condition of incorporation approved pursuant to Article V>>I<< of the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter, each new municipality, as a part of its charter, shall provide for adoption of Miami-Dade County's workforce housing development program established at Chapter 33, Article XIIA of the Code of Miami-Dade County, as amended, provided, however, that any municipality may establish and enforce more stringent regulations as necessary to ensure provision of workforce housing units within its jurisdiction.

>>(h) As a condition of incorporation approved pursuant to Article VI of the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter, each new municipality shall provide, as a part of the charter, that the Board of County Commissioners retains jurisdiction over the modification or deletion of declarations of restrictive covenants accepted by either the Board of County Commissioners or a Community Zoning Appeals Board in connection with a Comprehensive Development Master Plan application or zoning application, regardless of whether such declaration provides for modification or deletion by a successor governmental body.<<

Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 4. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance, including any sunset provision, shall become and be made a part of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate word.
Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of enactment unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective only upon an override by this Board.

1 Words stricken through and/or [[double bracketed]] shall be deleted. Words underscored and/or >>double arrowed<< constitute the amendment proposed. Remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged.



Home  |   Agendas  |   Minutes  |   Legislative Search  |   Lobbyist Registration  |   Legislative Reports
2014 BCC Meeting Calendar  |   Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances   |   ADA Notice  |  

Home  |  Using Our Site  |  About Phone Directory  |  Privacy  |  Disclaimer

E-mail your comments, questions and suggestions to Webmaster  

Web Site © 2014 Miami-Dade County.
All rights reserved.