HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Workshop_Tab 02_01/24/2005 I
�
JONES
FOSTER
JONNSTON
� STU66S, P.A.
Attorneys and Counselors
emo
To: Mike Couzzo
From: Scott G. Hawkins
Date: January 19, 2005
Subject: Sunshine Law
Village of Tequesta Councii Workshop on January 24, 2005
FLORIDA SUNSHINE LAW
I. Overview
Florida's Sunshine Law, § 286.011, Fia. Stat., provides a right of access to
governmental proceedings at state and locaf levels. The purpose of the Sunshine Law
was to prevent at nonpublic meetings the crystallization of secret decisions to a point
just short of ceremonial acceptance. Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison, 296 So. 2d 473,
477 (Fla. 1974). Entities subject to the Sunshine Law include any board or commission
of any state agency or authoriiy, or of any agency or authority of any county, municipal
corporation, or political subdivision. § 286.011(1). The law is equally applicable to
elected and appointed boards and has been applied to any gathering of finro or more
members of the same board to discuss some matter which will foreseeably come befoce
that board for action. Tolar v. School Board of Liberty Couniy, 398 So. 2d 427, 428
(Fla. 1981). The statute provides three basic requirements:
(1) meetings of public boards or commissions must be open to the public;
(2) reasonable notice of such meetings must be given; and
(3) minutes of the meetings must be taken.
No resolution, rule or forma{ action taken by a board or commission will be
considered binding except as taken or made at a public meeting. § 286.011(1). The
� January 19, 2005
` Page 2
�
�
,
statute also provides consequences for failure to comply with the Sunshine Law, ;
inctuding criminal penalties, removal from office, and attorney's fees. § 286.011(3)-(7). �
Where there has been a violation of the Sunshine Law that invalidates a
decision, the invalid action may be cured by a later open meeting. However, the action
at the later meeting cannot be "merely a ceremonial acceptance of secret actions" or
"merely a perfunctory ratification of secret decisions" made at the earlier meeting.
Tolar, 398 So. 2d at 429. The board or commission must take independent final action
in the sunshine in order to cure the defect.
II. Meetings between an individual Council member and an individua!
member of another Village Board.
The Sunshine Law does not apply to a meeting between two individuals who are
members of different boards, as long as the following three requirements are met:
a. two or more members of either board are not present;
b. neither member has been delegated decision-making authority to act on
behalf of his or her board; and
c. neither member is acting as a liaison for his or her board or any smaller
group of board members.
The language of the Sunshine Law provides, "All meetings of any board or
commission of any state agency or authority or of any agency or authority of any county,
municipal corporation or political subdivision, exaept as otherwise provided in the
Constitution, at which official acts are to be taken are deciared to be public meetings
open to the public at all times, and no resolution, rule or formal action shall be
considered binding except as taken or made at such meeting." Fla. Stat. § 286.011(1).
The Florida courts and the office of the Florida Attorney Generai have held that
the Sunshine Law applies to �any gathering where iwo or more members of a public
board or commission discuss matters on which foreseeable action will be taken by the
board or commission." AGO 87-34.
However, a meeting between two individuals who serve on iwo different boards
is not a"meeting" under this definition. While the members of two oc more different
boards may be meeting, no two members of any one board will be present, so it is not a
"meeting of any board."
If neither of the members has the authority to make any decisions or
recommendations during the meeting on behalf of his or her board, then they may meet
privately to discuss the details of a board's recommendation with each other. Rowe v.
:�
,
• January 19, 2005 �
� Page 3
i
Pinetlas Sports Authori , 461 So. 2d 72, 75 Fla.
Inc. v. Lee County, 570 So. 2d 1325, 1327 FIa. 2
( 1984); News-Press Publishin Co.
each member is sim I � d DCA 1990); AGO 87-34. qS �o�g as
p y gathering information to report back to his or her res ectiv
board, and is not acting as a liaison for other board mem
and thoughts of the board members to the other re esen Y circulating info mation
: vioiation of the Sunshine Law. Id. Because there is no ecisionat� e, then there is no
place, these types of ineetings are not required to be o e a��ng function taking
p n to the public.
���• Meetings between the Mayor and an individual Boa
member. rd or Councit
The same is true for meetings between the Ma or
as the Mayor is not a member of the same board, the Ma nd a Board member as long
the issue, the Mayor is not acting as a liaison between members an
nor the board member has been dete ate Yor has no power to vote on
, d neither the Mayor
Also, if a decision falls within the administ at"ve functions of t qGp 85_36.
come before the board for consideration, then the Mayor ma have '
with a board member without violatin the S Mayor and would not
9 unshine Law. AGO 75-21pvate discussions
The Mayor may have conversations with an individual Councii me
as the Mayor does not have the power to vote on the issue discussed mber as long
power to vote [is] a primary factor in determining whether the Ma or �S Generally, "the
be part of the city council for purposes of the Sunshine Law." AG y � � considered to
There is no violation of the Sunshine Law even if the Ma or ha � 90-26; AGO 85-36.
decision of the town council. Id. However, the Sunshine L aW Wou�the power to veto a
had the authority to vote in the case of a tie. AGO 83-70. d a pp�y �f the Mayor
On the other hand, if the Mayor is acting as a liai
the town councii on matters which wili come before the councii th
son between the members of
would apply. qG0 90-26; AGO 85-36. Additionall , if th en the Sunshine Law
both, have been delegated the authority to act on beh
Sunshine Law would be ap licable y e Mayor or council member, or
regarding such matters. qGp 90_2fi to any discussion a between the e��ndh� the
uais
�v Meetings between an individual Council member and s
taff.
Unpublicized meetings befinreen Councii members and
consultants, or staff who assist the Councii member in the dischar e of their advisers,
are not "meetings" for the purposes of the Sunshine Law. g h�s or her duties
subjected to the Sunshine Law uniess they have been dele ataff persons are not
functions outside of the ambit of normal staff functions, are actin ted decision-making
board members, or are acting in piace of board members at their 9 as liaisons between
direction. AGO 89-39.
�
• January 19, 2005 �
• Page 4
V• Written communications between Council members.
The use of a written report by one Board member to inform other Board me
of a subject which will be discussed at a public meetin mbers
: Sunshine Law if there is n o i n t e r a c t i o n p r i o r t o t h e mee ting hat is �elated �at i o n o f t h e
A G O 89-23. If a wri tt e n r e p o rt i s c i r c u l a t e d among Board memb t o t h e r e p o rt.
: comments b e i n g p r o v i d e d t o o t h e r Boar d members, then there would be a m olat on of
the Sunshine Law. AGO 90-03; 96-35.
V�• Telephone communications between Council members.
The Sunshine Law appfies to the deliberations and discussions between two a
more members of a board or commission on some matter which wiil foreseeably come
before the board for action. The use of a telephone to conduct such discussion
not remove the conversation from the requirements of the Sunshine Law. AGO gg Oes
However, individual Council members may call each other or th 39.
Council members to discuss administrative business that is not the sub eCt mcall the
Council action. J atter of
V��• Emaii communications between Council members.
Similariy, the use of emaii by members of a public board to communicate amon
themseives on issues pending before the board is subject to the Sunshine Law. 9
89-39. However, a one-way email communication from one council member to qG0
regarding factual background information, when it does not resuit in the exchan e o
another
council members' comments or responses on subjects requiring council action, does f
constitute a"meeting" subject to the Sunshine Law. AGO 01- Such:Q��� a
considered public records, however, and must be maintained by fhe record� c� r �
for public inspection and copying. AGO 96-34; AGO 01-20. ���an
N:1�SGH113153-11Vil�age Cq�ncil Workshop rn�.d�
. '
JoN�S
�OST�R
JOHNSTON
& STUBBS, P.A.
Attorneys and Counselors
en�o
To: Village of Tequesta
From: Margaret L. Cooper
Date: January 24, 2005
Subject: Village Administration
Viliage of Tequesta
Council Workshop on January 24, 2005
Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes:
The Florida Constitution distinguishes between counties and municipalities. A county is
a�olitical subdivision in the__S��fe of F{orida, whereas a municipality is a municipal
___ . _---------._.._ ._.
corporation established pursuant to general or special law.
`_--
� � G � � � .
The only constitutional limitations on a municipality are that (a) it must exercise powers
only for municipal purposes and (b) the legislative body must be elected. See Florida
Constitution, Art. 8, Sec. 1(Counties), and Sec. 2(Municipalities).
Also, under the statutory scheme, municipalities are limited to only governmental,
corporate and proprietary powers so as to enable them to conduct municipal
government, perForm municipal functions, and render municipal services. A municipality
. may exercise any power for municipal purposes, except when expressly prohibited by
law. See F.S. §166.021.
Charter Controls Municipal Structure:
Accordingly, there are no detailed constitutional or statutory provisions related to the
governmental structure of municipalities or to such matters as the composition of the
municipal council, the term of the members, or like matters. Rather, the municipal
charter is the paramount law of a municipality; it is the municipality's constitution
emanating andgiving it all the powers it possesses, unless other statutes are applicable
' January 24, 2005
- Page 2
to it. Clark v. North Bay Villaqe, 54 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 1951); Gontz v. Cooper Citv, 228
So. 2d 913 (4th DCA 1969).
Basic Forms of Municipal Government:
Generally, there are three basic forms of municipal government in Florida. These are
typical throughout the United States:
(1) Mayor-council; �, , �
.� �� { �. � -�-� � ��
�� �
(2) Commission; and j �� ��,,.�, 02�� 5�'^� `�
3) Council-manager or city manager.— ���"""� °� ��� `
s_
See 12A Fla. Jur. 2d §§118-120. ����'�
Commission or Mayor-Council Form of Government:
The feature that characterizes the commission form of government is the delegation of
al! executive and legislative powers to a single board consisting of a mayor and a limited
number of commissioners, in much the same manner as the delegation of the power to
administer a private corporation to its Board of Directors.
Under this structure, the commissioners not only have the legislative power, but also
exercise executive or administrative power. Often each commissioner is the head of a
department such as finance, fire and police, health, public recreation, and public works.
The commission elects a mayor as one of its own body and the mayor presides over the
meetings. Under some "strong mayor" form, the mayor is given more administrative
authority.
City Manager Form of Government:
The weaknesses of the commission form of government has fostered another type
known as the council-manager or city manager form of city government. In this type,
the city commissioner is elected by the voters, whose members in turn elect the mayor
to preside over the meetings. The distinctive feature of this form of municipal
government is the hiring of the professionally trained administrator, known as the city
manager, who exercises all of the administrative functions. He or she also selects the
heads of the various city departments. Generally, the city manager is appointed by the
council or commission and is subject to removal of that body as provided for in the
charter.
In the city manager form of municipal government, the basic tenet is that the council is
the policv-makinc�body. The manager is the chief administrative officer. As the
� January 24, 2005
- Page 3
administrative head of the city, the city manager must exercise discretionary powers in
the management of city affairs. He is not a mere ministerial "figurehead" as he has the
power to remove officers and employees, make appointments, and perform all other
administrative matters.
The Village of Tequesta:
The Village of Tequesta's charter is simi(ar to and modeled after the County
Administration Law - F.S. §125.70, et seq. A fair reading of the Charter makes it clear
that the Village is a City Manager form of government.
The powers of the Counci! are dealt with in Article II of the Tequesta Charter. The
administration is dealt with in Article III. Under Article II, the Council is specifically
prohibited from interFerin with the administration of the Village. See Section 2.91 w�iich
rea s as follows:
Neither the Council nor any of its members shall in any manner dictate the
appointment or removal of any Village emp{oyee. The Council shall have , ,
the power to remove the Village manager as provided in this Charter and C �" -��''
may express its views and discuss a11 matters with the manager. Except ' �
for the purpose of inquiries or investigations under this Charter, the 1
Counci{ and its members sha11 deal with Village employees solely through
the manager and neither the Council nor its members shall give orders to
any such officials or employees, either publicly or privatefy.
Article 111 clearly vests all administrative powers in the Village manager and the Village
clerk and such other department heads as provided for by the Charter, Florida law or by
vote of the Village Council.
The manager is appointed by the affirmative vote of four members ofi the Council and
must be removed by like vote. The Village manager is the supervisor of all
administrative affairs of the Village. His powers are very broad under Section 3.03.
Section 3.05 further provides that each department head is subject to the general
supervision and direction of the Village manager. The Village manager has the right to
hire and fire all staff.
Limitations on Manager's Administrative Powers:
One limitation, on the Village manager's powers is found in Section 3.03(6) as follows:
To appoint and when deemed necessary for the good of the Village,
suspend or remove any Village employee and/or department head
provided for, by, or under this Charter, or by ordinance, except as
' January 24, 2005
� Page 4
otherwise provided by Fiorida law this Charter or personnel rules adopted
by ordinance or resolution.
Thus, the Council not only has the authority to determine what departments
should exist, but it also has the authority to adopt personne! rules: After that it is
the Village manager's job to administer those policies and oversee the
departments.
Summary of Duties - Council Vis-a-Vis Manager:
In sum, and simply stated, it is the Council's function to pass iegislation (ordinances)
and to adopt general policies as a group. No individual Council member has any
authority to act on or interFere with any administrative matter. It is the manager's job to
administer, manage, and carry out the policies and ordinances adopted by the Council.
What Constitutes "Inquiry or Investigation" Within the Meaning of the Charter?:
,
This structure of government (Cit Mana er and professional staff) is quite common.�,��s Ery�
This includes a provision to prohibit interFerence with the administrative department
We have done a computer search of this provision to see if there have been any courts
which have construed similar language. There is one Florida Supreme Court opinion -
Garvin v. Jerome, 767 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2000). A council member and vice mayor of
the City of Daytona Beach Shores (Phyllis T. Garvin) became the subject of a Petition
for Recall. The Petition was based upon an accusation of "malfeasance" for violating
this�iae tical prohibition. The accusation was that Ms. Garvin was guilty of persistent,
repeated violation of the "city manager" form of government and Section 3.06 of the
Charter by:
Giving work instructions to city employees without first going through the
city manager and without city council discussion or approval, taking
unlawful, unilateral action to advertise for a part-time interim city manager.
There were other grounds alleged, including misfeasance in that she had "intimidated or
harassed" city employees to effectuate her personal desires. The Court found that the
petition was not effective because some of the grounds in the recall petition did not
constitution lawful grounds fior removal. However, the Court did note that the claim of
"malfeasance due to persistent, repeated violations of city manager form of
government" did state a valid basis for a petition for recall, if proven.
Other cases around the United States have dealt with similar provisions prohibiting
interferences. These provisions are common and violation of the provisions by council
members has been the subject of litigation -- primarily seeking recall or injunctive relief.
' January 24, 2005
� Page 5
Most courts have difficulty defining a bright line distinction befinreen "inquiry" and
"investigation" as opposed to "intimidation" or "interference." As one court noted in Levy
v. City of Santa Monica, 114 Cal. App. 1252 (2d Dist. Cal. 2004):
It is not easy to distinguish between "inquiry" and "acts" designed to
influence the decision. General words [such as "inquiry"] create different
and often particular impressions on different minds.
In that case, the Levys contended that a council member violated Section 6.10 of Santa
Monica's Charter by advocating on behalf of a constituent. The court recognized that
often governmental officials are called upon to be advocates for their constituents. In
that capacity, they do intercede, lobbying to generate publicity to advance their
constituent's goals. However, in advocating the constituent's positions, there is a fine
line between advocating the same in adopting policies or ordinances and applying
"direct pressure" or "engaging in acts designed to influence" the city administrative staff.
The court noted that that injunction against those activities might be an overly broad
restraint on free speech in violation of the Constitution.
There, the court concluded that a city council member did not violate Section 6.10 of
their Charter by speaking with the City Planning Department employees on behalf of the
constituent to simply inquire about a structure built on a neighbor's property.
A similar provision was construed in the case of Stern v. Hall, 183 N.J. 536 (N.J. 1982).
There the court found that the words ("inquiry," etc.) were not unconstitutionally vague.
However, the court noted that the intention of the ordinance was that a council should
act as a body. Only by so acting can policy be defined. Individual council members --
under the City Manager form of government -- are not to influence the manager. He is
not to respond to the will of an individual, only the will of the council as a body. The rule
is of such significance that violation mainly leads to foss of office under their statutory
scheme.
�- In the case of In re Herbert Carl Bosso, 231 S.E. 2d 715 (V1l.V. 1977), the court
construed a similar charter provision. There, the city councilman inquired of the city
manager: "Why don't you fire the damn chief of police?" The trial court convicted the
city council member of unlawfully interfering with the city administration and ordered the
removal of the council member. The court of appeals reversed finding that this was a
drastic remedy that the evidence must be clear and convincing to meet the statutory
requirements as satisfactory proof of violation. The words used by the council member
were subject to interpretation and could have been construed as a matter of inquiry as
opposed to direction.
See also Woods v. Billinqs, 811 PTD 534 (Montana 1991) (court notes that this type of
charter provision is a prohibition from the legislative branch interfering with the
administrative affairs); Indian Hill Associates, Inc. v. CitY of Worcester, 2002 WL 3197,
� January 24, 2005
' Page 6
3198 (Mass.) (real estate developer brought a claim against a municipality and officials
alleging unlawfuf interference with the administrative department and its right to
construct a residential subdivision).
In sum, the courts that have construed similar provisions and uphold them as
constitutional. However, defining the type of conduct which crosses the line is a difficult
one and subject to varying interpretations.
There is a difference between inquiry to obtain facts that assist Council members in
carrying out their duties -- legislation, adoption of policy, and the appointment and
removal of a manager -- as opposed to inquiry to undermine the manager's authority
and/or to interfere with the administration of business.
The Village Charter allows for inquiry and investigation. There is no procedure laid out
in the Charter for how an inquiry is made. But a clear distinction is drawn that dealings
other other than mere inquiry must go through the manager.
�( The common dictionary definition of "inquiry" and "investigation" involves "fact
gathering. The fact gathering should be for a proper purpose and consistent with the
powers of Village Council members - i.e., adoption of policy and legislation,
not for
the purpose of interference, intimidation, or influencing the administration of the Village
affairs. Again, the Council is a policy making body whereas the Village Manager is in
charge of administration.
The Solution:
A. Discretion:
First, each city council member must exercise discretion and good judgment keeping in
mind that their function is to adopt policy and legislation -- not to manage or administer
those policies. It is better to err on the side of caution than to be accused of violation of
this charter provision.
B. Policies:
The Council as a group can co((ectively adopt policies to address any situation,
including staff management or personnel issues.
As it relates to employee relations and employee complaints, the Village manager has
already adopted certain poiicies. These include employee grievance procedures as
follows:
� January 24, 2005
' Page 7
.... . Harassment and retaliation arievance procedure - to govern situations
where the conduct arises to actionable harassment and/or retaliation in
violation of law.
• Whistleblower - to address allegations of abuse of power, violations of law,
� and retaliation for reporting the same.
.� • Em�loyee relations council or peer committee - to address general
complaints concerning working conditions or relations between
management and staff. (This is in process of finalization.)
If the Council wishes to adopt any further policies to address employee relations or
complaints, that is the Council's prerogative. However, these three types of policies are
a common structure to address most municipal employment issues.
C. Miscellaneous Issues:
1. Dissemination of information to Council.
Generally, information sought by a Council member is for one of two purposes:
• To respond to a constituent.
• For use at Council meetings.
An issue has arisen as to other Council members having access to information in
advance of a meeting. This would seem to be an appropriate policy to assure that all
Council members have access to the same information in advance if they so desire.
Accordingly, it is an appropriate protocol and simply polite to provide this to all.
2. Inquiry fhrough manager.
Another issue is whether the inquiry or information gathering needs to be centralized
through the manager. While there is no such restriction in the Charter, it is not a bad
idea (as a practical matter) so that the manager keeps a handle on the administrative
� time being devoted to such inquiries, etc. However, for minor inquiries, etc., this is
inconvenient and seems a waste of time.
There has been some suggestion that, under this particular charter, all inquiries must go
through the manager, except for inquiries or investigations "as provided for in the
Charter" and that those inquiries can only be directed by the Council as a body.
R
� � January 24, 2005
' Page 8
I believe that the language of the Charter is broad enough so that individual Council
members may make inquiry with staff directly -- especially when seeking information as
to respond to a constituent, gathering information for use in adoption of policy, and
assisting Council members in their ability to assess the manager. (This is simply a
personal opinion, no court has spoken to the issue, and reasonable men may disagree
on that interpretation. What is clear is that because the remedy for violation is drastic �
and penal in nature — removal from office—I think that the courts would take a more
expansive view of any ambiguity.)
In any event, caution should be taken to avoid undermining the city manager form of
government, intimidation of staff, or interFerence with the manager's ability to manage
staff. Accordingly, we recommend that to avoid appearances of impropriety and
interference and to promote efficiency of government and the city manager form of
government, most inquiries should go through the manager.
Lastly, if a Council member has concerns whether the manager is carrying out policy
and directive of the Council , we recommend that the inquiry should be addressed by
the Council as a body, as no Council member has individual authority to act or interfere
in staff management. Only the Council as a body may do so -- and then only by
removal of the Manager or adoption of personnel policies. This will avoid any
appearance of impropriety and interference with the management structure.
N:1mlclvillage-tequesta-001-m1c-01-24-05.doc
JONES
FOSTER
JOl�NSTON
� STV6BS, P.A.
Attorneys and Counselors
emo
To: Mike Couzzo
From: Scott G. Hawkins
Date: January 19, 2005
Subject: Devefopment Review Process
Village of Tequesta Council Workshop on January 24, 2005
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS
I. Changes � Amendments to Zoning Code [Art. 11, Sec. 78-31 to 78-33]
The process to change, amend, supplement, modify or repeal by ordinance the
boundaries, districts, regulations or restrictions of the zoning code is as foffows:
1) The Building Official of the Department of Community
Development is authoriz�d ta furnish �pp�ic�tion fqrrp� fQr all
requested zoning changes. ;
2) Petitioner files application and filing fee with the Department or
the Village Council can consider changes and amendments on its
own motion.
3) The Department of Community Development submits a written
staff report regarding the ability of �kre applicant #o .meet Village _
standards and regulations. (see Art. II, Community Appeatance, �
Sec. 22-55].
4) The Planning and Zoning Advisory Board reviews application and
staff report and makes written recommendation to Village Council.
[see Art. II, Community Appearance, Sec. 22-53].
January 19, 2005
Page 2
5) Village Council holds a pubiic hearing with official notice.
6) If owners of 20% or more of the tots affected by the proposed
change or within a 200-foot radius protest the change, a 3/5 vote
of the Village Councii is needed to approve the change.
7) If a zoning amendment proposal is denied after a public hearing,
the Village Councii shall not reconsider the amendment for 6
months after the date of denial unless the Village Council
determines that it is in the public interest to do so.
II. Schedule of Use Regulations [Art. VI, Division 2, Sec. 78-171 to 78-180]
The zoning district uses in this Schedu(e include the foltowing:
1) R1A—single-family dwelling district
2) R-1—single-family dwelling district
3) R-2—multiple-family dwelling district
4) R-3—multiple-family dwelling district
5) C-1—neighborhood commercial district
6) C-2—community commercial district
7) C-3—general commercial district
8) R/OP—recreation/open space district
9) MU—mixed use district
III. Site Plan Review [Art. IX, Division 2, Sec. 78-331 to 78-334]
Site Plan Review is required for:
� All permitted uses in all zoning districts except R-1A and R-1.
• All special exception uses approved by the Village Council.
• All Planned aesidential b�velopments (PRD), . Planned Commercial
DeVelopments (PCD) and P'lalnned Multi-Use Districts (PMUD).
• Alf subdivisions.
The site plan review process is as follows:
1) Preapplication meeting is held wixh fl�e �pplicant, design t�am,
Building Official and Depa�tt�n,���.�f �ipp�t��}}i�jr Develc�ments�t�ff
to develop an understan�,j,�� ',of the p,r���,�# and zonin�
regulations. - ;�
2) Applic�tion �r�d #iling fee is filed py �h� ��,�Ij;���� yyl�� t�ie
Departm�;nt.
� ,,,
�
January 19, 2005
Page 3
a
�
�
J
3) Building Officiai and Community Development Staff review the :�
application for compliance with technical requirements and submit =
comments and recommendations to the Village Council within 45
days of receipt of the application. If Staff finds there is a variance
with the zoning regulations, the applicant must apply to the Village
Council for a variance before the site plan can be approved.
4) The Planning and Zoning Advisory Board reviews application and
staff report and makes written recommendation to Village Council.
[see Art. II, Community Appearance, Sec. 22-53].
5) The Village Council reviews, considers and acts upon the
application. The Village Council may approve, approve with
conditions or deny the application. The Village Council will then
direct the Building Official to approve or withhold approval of a
building permit for the project.
6) The Village Council may require a developer's agreement, which
requires 2 public hearings with official notice by mail to all affected
property owners within 300 feet and in a newspaper seven days
before each hearing.
7) An expedited site plan review is available at the applicant's
request with fee for expedited review. Expedited review wi{I occur
within 30 days of receipt of the application at a joint meeting of the
Village Council and Planning and Zoning Advisory Board.
8) A building permit must be applied for within 1 year of the approval
date of the site plan or it will be nullified. An additional year will
be granted by authorization of the Vil�age Council.
9) Site plan approval must occur befoce a building permit is issued.
IV. Special Exceptions (Art. IX, Division 3, Sec. 78-361 to 78-369]
Special exceptions are only granted by authorization of the Village Council. The
process for special exceptions is as fiollows:
1) Petitioner files a written application with filing fee by noon on the
15 day of the month to the Department of Community
Development.
2) The application is reviewed h� �kie Community Development sta�f
within � ctays of the s�prtis�ion deadtirle. The Building Officiat
January 19, 2005
Page 4
then forwards recommendations from the staff to the Vil{age
Council.
3) The Planning and Zoning Advisory Board reviews application and
staff report and makes written recommendation to Village Council.
[see Art. II, Community Appearance, Sec. 22-53].
4) The Village Council holds a public hearing. Official notice of the
hearing is advertised in a newspaper 15 and 5 days in advance
and mailed to the property owner and all properly owners within a
300-foot radius, as well as posted on the property.
5) If the Village Council denies the petition, the reasons for denial
must be stated on the record.
6) Reapplication after denial will not be considered for 12 months
from the date of denial unless there are 3 votes by the Vitlage
Council to reconsider the application in order to prevent injustice
or facilitate proper development of the Village.
7) Special exceptions that are granted must commence within 12
months from the date of the grant. 1n order #o commence, an
application for a building permit or site plan must be filed. Only
one extension for a period of 6 months is available by
authorization of the Village Council.
V. Appeals & Variances [Art. IlI, Sec. 78-61 to 78-69)
A person aggrieved by a decision of an administrative officer enforcing the
zoning code may appeal that decision or seek a variance from its requirements. The
Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction over these matters for single-family properties and
structures located in R-1A and R-1 single-family dwelling districts. The Village Council
has jurisdiction over all other districts, subdivisions in any district, and properties and
structures located in R-1A and R-1 districts that are not single-family dwellings.
The Board of Adjustment or Village Council may hear and decide appeals where
there is alleged error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an
administrative official. A variance may be authorized where, because of special
conditions, literal enforcement of the zoning code would result in unnecessary hardship
to the pet+tioner.
A variance will not exempt petitioner from the requirements for a site plan review
and building permit. In addition, a variance may not be granted to permit uses not
generally or by special exception permitted in the zoning district involved or any uses
January 19, 2005
Page 5
expressly or impliedly prohibited in that zoning district. Nonconforming uses of
neighboring lands in the same zoning district and permitted uses of land in other zoning
districts shall not be grounds for authorization of variances.
The process for appeals and variances is as folfows:
1) Person aggrieved �les notice of appeal and filing fee with the
clerk of the Board of Adjustment or Village Council within a
reasonable time of the adverse decision.
2} Within a reasonable time, the Board of Adjustment or Village
Council will have a public hearing on the appeal with official notice
by mail to the parties involved and all owners of property within a
300-foot radius and in the newspaper.
3) An appeal stays all proceedings unless it is determined that a stay
will cause imminent peril to life or property.
4) If an appeal is denied, the petitioner cannot resubmit the appeal
for 90 days after the date of denial.
5) A petitioner may appeal a decision of the Board of Adjustment or
Village Council to Circuit Court within 30 days of the decision if
the petitioner alleges the decision was illegal.
6) A variance will have a reasonable time limit. If there is no time
limit, the variance will expire within 6 months of the date of
granting the variance unless a building permit has been issued
and construction begins.
VI. Planned Commercial Development (PCD) [Art. VIII,Sec. 78-251 to 78-258]
The site plan review process for PCDs is the same as discussed above. PCDs
must also be platted before a building permit can be issued. A PCD may depart from
strict application of the regulations for the district where it is Iocated, but it must be in
compliance with the Village Comp Plan. If there is conflict between the special PCD
regulations and the general zoning regulations, the PCD regulations apply.
PCDs should follow the regulations for the zoning district where they are located.
However, the Village Council may modify district regulations for the PCD if the spirit and
intent of the zoning code can be complied with in the total development of the PCD.
The Vifiage Councif may at its discretion require adherence to the district regulations
within a portion of the site in order to maintain the spirit and intent of the zoning code.
January 19, 2005
Page 6
The foilowing special regulations apply to PCDs:
• Location—PCDs are only permitted as special exceptions in
C-2 zoning districts.
• Height—Same as in C-2 zoning district, but at discretion of
Vilfage Council may be increased to a maximum of 4 stories
or 50 feet.�
• Site area—minimum of 3 acres.
• Total number of dwelling units-18 units per gross acre.
• Area limitations—platted commercial & residential is 80% of
. gross land area; platted open space is 20% gross land area.
• Permitted uses:
a. Residential—single-family as in PRD; any use in R-2
and R-3 districts; and adult congregate living facilities.
b. Commercial--retail sales and s�rvices, busEn�ss
services, professional services, personal services,
restaurants, theaters, private clubs.
c. Recreational--any use in R/CyP district.
N:1SGM13153-1\vNageCouncil WorkShop memo1.doc
Page 1 of 1
z
;
Mike Couzzo �
;
From: Ciarke, Stirling E. [sclarke@jones-foster.com] '
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 12:35 PM
To: mcouzzo@tequesta.org
Cc: Scott Hawkins
Subject: Final Draft of Sunshine Law & Deviopment Review memos
Mr. Couuo,
Please find attached the final versions of the Workshop memos on the Sunshine Law and the Development
Review Process. Piease let me know if you have any additional changes or need further assistance with this
material.
Thanks,
Stirling E, Clarke, Esquire
Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A.
5Q5 South Fiagler Drive, Ste. 1100
1/Uest Paim Beach, FL 33401
(561) 658-3000
Q�D {�6'�} �5�-0449
Facsimile {561) 650-0412
soiatke jo_nes-foster.com
wv_v�v �nes-#os#er.cnm
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient{s) named above. This message
and its attachments may be an attorney-dient communication and, as such, is privileged and confidentiai. if the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient w an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in
error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message,
O 1 /21 /2005