Laserfiche WebLink
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />Summary Minutes: Special City Commission Meeting <br /> <br />June 21, 2007 <br /> <br />Sunny Isles Beach, Florida <br /> <br />Mr. Schulman claimed they were not required to disclose the marina in its application to <br />the Shoreline Committee. Mr. Schulman claimed they provided the County with the <br />upland and submerged land needed to maintain their FAR. According to Mr. Schulman, <br />they wanted to bifurcate their application, intending to go back to the Shoreline <br />Committee at a later date before building the marina. Mr. Schulman claimed they <br />provided the County with the same deed confirming ownership of the 17 acres of upland <br />and submerged land. Mr. Schulman said they filed an appeal that was timely, and the <br />City has no authority to deny this application or deny their appeal based on Section 33-6 <br />of the Code. <br /> <br />Mr. Schulman requested that the Commission find that Publix's appeal was timely filed <br />and that no fraud was committed on the City. According to Mr. Schulman, this would <br />allow Publix to appear before the Commission at a later date and challenge Mr. Solera's <br />decision that Publix did not provide sufficient information in its application. <br /> <br />3. Public Comment. <br /> <br />Action: Bud Scholl appeared at the hearing and provided public comment. Mr. Scholl <br />said he came to the last meeting on this issue and thought this was a straightforward issue. <br />Mr. Scholl expressed his opinion that counsel for Publix was unfairly abstracting the <br />City's rules. Mr. Scholl stated he was very surprised to hear that Publix, operating in this <br />community for 30-40 years, and planning on operating for another 40-50 years, would <br />come into the community, abstract our ordinances, hire the best legal talent in town, and <br />then go about their business. Mr. Scholl said he finds it very hypocritical that Publix <br />would try to disadvantage the same community they plan on doing business with. Mr. <br />Scholl said the community will demonstrate to Publix that what they are trying to do will <br />not be tolerated. Mr. Scholl further claimed he would organize community leaders and <br />attempt to boycott Publix. Mr. Scholl said he would also encourage City staff to look at <br />every available sanction to impose on Publix. Mr. Scholl urged the Commission to hold <br />the line on this issue. <br /> <br />4. Rebuttal bv City Attornev Hans Ottinot. <br /> <br />Action: City Attorney Hans Ottinot stated that the procedure for appealing an <br />administrative decision is very clear. In terms of zoning matters, an applicant can appeal <br />an administrative decision of a staff member under the City Manager, but not an opinion <br />of the City Attorney. City Attorney Ottinot stated that he is the City Attorney for the City <br />Manager and also the City Commission. According to City Attorney Ottinot, Mr. <br />Schulman erroneously appealed his verbal legal opinion, and that this is not authorized <br />under the City Code. City Attorney Ottinot stated that if Mr. Schulman wanted to <br />properly appeal the administrative decision of zoning staff in this matter, he should have <br />appealed the administrative decision of Steven Belden. City Attorney Ottinot stated that <br />Mr. Schulman never appealed Mr. Belden's administrative decision. City Attorney <br />Ottinot stated that he would waive the timeliness argument and allow Publix to present its <br />entire appeal, including Publix's appeal of his legal opinion, and its appeal of Robert <br />Solera's administrative decision. <br /> <br />5 <br />