Reso 2007-1105 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

was declared null and void for failure to rcspond to staff comments on a timely basis, in violation of Section 265-11 (1) of the City Code. Thereforc, the administrative decision relating to the rejection of the site plans is hereby affirmed. 19. Publix also claims that the "denial" of its administrative appeal was unlawful. In particular, Publix argues that the legal opinion of the City Attorney violated its rights under the law. However, the legal opinion of the City Attorney is not an administrativc action which is subjected to revicw by the City Managcr under the City Code. The implementation of the legal opinion by the Zoning and I'lanning Staff is considered an administrative action under the City Code. The City Attorney did not reject administratively the site plans filed by Publix. The Zoning and Planning Staff made the administrative decisions. Section 265-22(13) of the City Code provides that "all appeals of administrative actions shall be made to the City Manager, within 14 days of the administrative decision." In order to preserve the issue relating to the use of submerged land, Publix was required to appeal Stcvcn Belden's January 31, 2007, administrative decision, wherein Mr. Belden, thc City's Senior Planner, concluded that the submerged land could not be used for densitylintensity purposes. Because Publix failed to appcal Mr. Belden's administrative decision to the City Manager within fourteen (14) days, the submerged land issue was not properly prcservcd for review. Notwithstanding, the City Commission agreed to address this issue in this appeal. 20. In its appeal of the City Attorney's legal opinion, Publix's argues that submcrged land can bc used for density/intensity purposes. Spccifically, Publix argues that under City Ordinance No. 2004-215, it can use the alleged submerged land for density/intensity purposes. However, under Ordinance No. 2004-215 submerged land could only bc considered part of a "lot area" if it is "enclosed by the exterior boundaries of thc lot." Here, the submerged land is not cstablished by plat and is not part of a "lot area" as that term is defined in Ordinance No. 2004-215 or Section 265-5 of the City Code. Moreovcr, under the City's Future Land Use Map, there is no assignment of density/intensity development use for property designated as "Water" (i.e. submerged land). The alleged submerged land is designated as water in the City Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, it is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and LDRs to assign development rights to submerged land where no such rights exist. Additionally, it would violate Florida's growth management requirements to use the alleged submerged land for density/intensity calculations. The expert opinions provided by staff support this conclusion. Thus, because Publix's alleged submerged land is not established within the legal boundary of its property (either by plat or subdivision) it cannot be used for density and floor area purposes. 21. The final issue is whether I'ublix perpetrated a fraud on the City. Section 265-11 of the City Code specifically provides that the City shall have the right to rcly on the accuracy of statements and documentation made in connection with a zoning application. Moreover, Section 33-6 of the City Code imposes cthical obligations upon parties making presentations, formal requests, or petitions to the City and provides that actions taken with respect to such matters shall be voidable if the City discovers that any disclosures were not made fully or truthfully. Here, the record is replete with clear and convincing evidence that Publix knowingly and intentionally: a. misrepresented critical information in connection with its site plan applications to 4