Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Summary Minutes: Special City Commission Meeting <br /> <br />June 21,2007 <br /> <br />Sunny Isles Beach, Florida <br /> <br />has nothing to do with what the Commission just heard. The only issue is the April 3, <br />2007, letter from the City Attorney stating that Publix cannot appeal to the Commission <br />because their application was untimely and fraudulent. Mr. Schulman claimed the City <br />Attorney cannot be impartial in this matter, and cited to the Florida Supreme Court's <br />decisions in Ford vs. City oj Lakeland and Cherry Communications, Inc. vs. Deason. <br />According to Mr. Schulman, those cases support the argument that the City Attorney <br />cannot simultaneously serve as an impartial advisor to the Commission and as a <br />prosecutor. Mr. Schulman stated that having special counsel does not cure the problem. <br />Mr. Schulman requested that the Commission defer this matter until a Special Assistant <br />City Attorney is appointed. <br /> <br />Mr. Schulman's appeal concerned the administrative decision of Community <br />Development Director Robert Solera. The City Attorney responded to Mr. Schulman's <br />appeal by stating the decision could not be appealed because it was untimely and also <br />because ofPublix's fraud on the City. Mr. Schulman stated the appeal of Mr. Solera's <br />decision was timely, and that he was prepared to proffer the testimony of Peter Rodriguez <br />his paralegal, who would testify that he delivered the appeal by hand delivery at 4:45 <br />p.m. on March 16, 2007. Mr. Schulman claimed that the appeal was stamped by the City <br />on March 16,2007. Additionally, the appeal was emailed by his associate, Javier A vino, <br />to John Szerlag, Jane Hines, Hans Ottinot, Robert Solera, Elena Del Campillo, and Steve <br />Belden on the same day and at approximately the same time. Mr. Schulman stated that <br />since no counter argument was made by the City in its presentation, the timeliness issue <br />should be considered waived. <br /> <br />Next, Mr. Schulman claimed that the City Attorney had no right to write his letter. <br />Accordingly to Mr. Schulman, only the City Manager had authority over Publix's appeal <br />ofMr. Solera's decision. Mr. Schulman argued that the City Attorney's rejection of their <br />appeal was unlawful and that it should have been properly brought before the <br />Commission. Mr. Schulman stated he has appeared before the Commission for almost <br />10-years and this is the first time in his 33-year career that anyone has accused him of <br />fraud or unethical behavior. Mr. Schulman claimed that the appeal could not be rejected <br />for fraud because there is no evidence that Publix misrepresented anything in its <br />application to the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Schulman stated that Publix owned 17.16 acres, portions of which are submerged <br />and portions of which are not, and that the City has not refuted this claim. Mr. Schulman <br />claimed that the City was given a title policy and a deed, confirming ownership of the <br />17.16 acres of submerged land and upland. Mr. Schulman also stated they informed the <br />City of their intention to build 378 condominium units, a 42,000 square foot Publix <br />facility, and a FAR ("floor area ratio") of 4.0, and that nobody claimed this information <br />was incorrect. Mr. Schulman further claimed that they provided the same deed and title <br />policy to the City and County, confirming ownership ofthe land. Mr. Schulman claimed <br />that Section 33-6 ofthe City Code does not apply because there was no misrepresentation <br />to the City. <br /> <br />4 <br />