Legislative Matter

Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 140394

Printable PDF Format

File Number: 140394

File Type: Ordinance

Status: Amended

Version: 0

Reference:

Control: Board of County Commissioners

File Name: ORDINANCE ON HOLE-IN-THE DONUT UDB

Introduced: 2/21/2014

Requester: NONE

Cost:

Final Action:

Agenda Date: 3/4/2014

Agenda Item Number: 7F

Notes:

REQUIRES 6 WEEKS - 4 WEEKS; SEE 140573 FOR FINAL VERSION AS ADOPTED.

Title:

ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2-116.1 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; RELATING TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE [SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE 132472]

Indexes:

URBAN DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES

Sponsors:	Rebeca Sosa, Prime Sponsor
	Lynda Bell, Co-Sponsor
	Audrey M. Edmonson, Co-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	3/4/2014	7F	Amended
REPORT:	SEE LEGISLATIVE FILE NO. 140573

County Attorney	2/21/2014		Assigned	Abbie N. Schwaderer	2/21/2014

Land Use & Development Committee	2/13/2014	1F3 Amended	Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation with committee amendment(s)				P
REPORT:	Assistant County Attorney Abbie Schwaderer-Raurell read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Chairman Diaz opened the public hearing and called for persons wishing to appear before the Committee in connection with this proposed ordinance. Ms. Celeste De Palma, representing Tropical Audubon Society, 5530 Sunset Drive, Miami 33143, appeared in support of the foregoing proposed ordinance. She thanked the sponsors of this proposal for ensuring future sustainable growth, safeguarding the County’s resources, and preventing the hole-in-the donut scenario in the future. Ms. Laura Reynolds, representing Tropical Audubon Society, 5530 Sunset Drive, appeared in support of the foregoing proposed ordinance. Mr. Jeffrey Bercow, Bercow, Radell and Fernandez, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, appeared before the Committee. He noted he sent an email to the commissioners with a suggested revision and clarification of this proposed ordinance. Mr. Bercow said he understood the intent of this proposal; however, suggested the words “the approval of” be added after the phrase “shall be filed where” and the word "located" be added before the phrase "outside of the UDB" on handwritten page 5. He noted he believed these suggestions clarified and strengthened the ordinance. Chairman Diaz closed the public hearing after no one else appeared wishing to speak. Commissioner Edmonson inquired about the impact of Mr. Bercow’s proposed language on this ordinance. In response to Commissioner Edmonson, Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel asked the Planning Director to comment on the language. Mr. Mark Woerner, Assistant Director of Planning, Planning Division, Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER), said he did not believe Mr. Bercow’s suggestion to include the language “the approval of” was helpful in clarifying the intent of this ordinance, but believed it was helpful to insert the word “located” in the last sentence. He presented a chart showing prior approval of the Beacon Lakes and Shoppyland applications which came in simultaneously and resulted in a hole-in-the donut area. Mr. Woerner said the requirement of this proposed ordinance that no application to expand the area within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) shall be filed where such application would result in an area of land outside of the UDB being more than 75 percent surrounded by land that is within the UDB, would ensure that a similar situation did not occur. He noted an applicant could not proceed if he/she did not meet this requirement. Chairman Diaz expressed concern that a hole-in-the donut could still be created if both applications were approved simultaneously or separately. Chairman Diaz said he believed it was worse being inside the 75 percent area than being outside, and asked how this could be addressed. In response to Chairman Diaz, Mr. Woerner said this issue could be addressed by requiring that the application must be within one mile outside of the UDB. Chairman Diaz noted he perceived complaints in the future based on this rule. Commissioner Edmonson expressed concern regarding moving the UDB. She spoke in support of the foregoing proposed ordinance as written, except to add the word “located” as recommended by Mr. Bercow. Commissioner Bell noted her concern about amending this proposal in the absence of County Commission Chairwoman Sosa, the Prime Sponsor. She said she would prefer, as a Co-Sponsor of this item that it be forwarded to the County Commission; however, she concurred with adding the word “located” as an amendment. Commissioner Bell recommended that Mr. Bercow meet with Chairwoman Sosa regarding his suggestions. Chairman Diaz said if this proposal were to be approved, the UDB should be permanent and voters should be allowed to vote on the UDB before it was moved. He noted once an application was filed, it would be difficult for another application to be filed pursuant to the proposed guidelines. Mr. Woerner presented a second scenario in which both applications could be approved independently. He noted this was implementing a minimal rule in order to not repeat past mistakes. Chairman Diaz said he would be proposing legislation to allow voters an opportunity to decide if the UDB should be moved. He noted the proposed ordinance would affect many applications and many cities. Chairman Diaz said he would meet with staff to get a better understanding and present his suggestions to the County Commission. He noted this proposal would hinder many applications. Chairman Diaz concurred that something must be done to control western growth. In response to Commissioner Edmonson’s inquiry whether the County Commission could make the UDB permanent, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that the Florida Legislature adopted recent legislation that limits the ability to subject Comprehensive Plan amendments to referenda. He noted staff needed to evaluate how this legislation would impact the County’s Charter. Responding to Commissioner Edmonson’s request that he determine whether the UDB could be made permanent, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel noted it would be part of the legislation requested by Chairman Diaz. Chairman Diaz said his proposal was that everything else would be through a referendum, provided there were reasonable areas for potential growth and expansion. He asked Assistant County Attorney Kerbel to review this issue. The Committee members proceeded to vote on the foregoing ordinance, as amended to add the word “located” before the phrase "outside of the UDB" on handwritten page 5.

Legislative Text

TITLE
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2-116.1 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; RELATING TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY; 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 2-116.1 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows:1
Sec. 2-116.1. Amendment Procedure for Comprehensive Development Master Plan.

(2) Application. Except as specifically provided below for applications pursuant to a compliance agreement, pursuant to a State statutory requirement, or pursuant to a concurrently requested development of regional impact (DRI) development order or change to an existing DRI development order, or for applications relating to reuse of military bases pursuant to Chapter 288, F.S., any request for amendments, modifications, additions or changes to the Comprehensive Development Master Plan shall be submitted to the Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources or successor agency (hereinafter referred to as "the Department") during the period between May 1 and May 31 inclusive (hereinafter "May period"), and during the period between November 1 and November 30 inclusive (hereinafter "November period"), in each year only in accordance with the following provisions:

(a) Applications requesting amendment to the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) or to the Urban Expansion Area (UEA) boundary depicted on the Land Use Plan map, or to the land use classification of land located outside of said Urban Development Boundary may be filed only during the May period in odd-numbered years. The Director of the Department may also file applications requesting amendments to the UDB, UEA or to the land use classification of land located outside of said UDB for processing during either the May or November period following the adoption of an evaluation and appraisal report, provided that the amendments proposed in said applications are suggested in the adopted evaluation and appraisal report. >>It is provided, however, that no application to expand the area within the UDB shall be filed where such application would result in an area of land<< >>located<<2 >>outside of the UDB being more than seventy-five percent (75%) surrounded by land that is within the UDB.<<

Section 2. 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 3. 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 4. 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED:

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.
2 Committee amendments are indicated as follows: Words double stricken through and/or [[double bracketed]] are deleted, words double underlined and/or >>double arrowed<< are added.