HOLMES BEACH – At the advice of City Attorney Erica Augello, city commissioners plan to deny the planning commission’s request to conduct preliminary reviews of major site plan applications.
Augello also advised that major site plan applications not be preliminarily discussed during non-quasi-judicial city commission work meetings.
A site plan is a diagram that illustrates a proposed development, redevelopment or significant improvements desired by a property owner.
Augello dispensed her legal advice on Jan. 14 while Holmes Beach city commissioners and Director of Development Services Chad Minor discussed proposed changes to the city’s site plan application review processes. The proposed changes are set forth in Ordinance 25-02 and the ordinance was presented on first reading that day. Adoption is expected during the second and final reading on Tuesday, Jan. 28.
Currently, the planning commission does not review major site plan applications before the city commission conducts an evidence- and testimony-based quasi-judicial public hearing on the proposed site plan.
When initially reviewing the proposed ordinance last year, the planning commissioners recommended inserting additional language that would allow them conduct public hearings to review major site plan applications for consistency with the city’s comprehensive plan and land development code. This would be done before the city commission conducts its quasi-judicial public hearing on the site plan application.
The planning commission’s recommended language was included in the ordinance presented to city commissioners on Jan. 14.
“The city planning commission shall hold a properly noticed public hearing to review the site plan application and based on the evidence presented provide a recommendation to the board of commissioners as to whether the application is consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan and land development code.
“The city planning commission may also provide advisory comments to the applicant regarding site design recommendations to increase compatibility of the site with adjacent uses and the surrounding area. After review by the planning commission, the planning and zoning administrator or designee shall prepare a staff report, findings and recommendation for submittal to the city commission for review at a public hearing, including any recommendations provided by the planning commission,” the ordinance said at that time.
Regarding the proposed inclusion of the planning commission in the site plan application review process, City Commissioner Carol Whitmore said, “I don’t support this. This is not a planning commission role. This is one of the biggest jobs of the commission and we should be taking the responsibility for it.”
Whitmore said the planning commission’s role is to ensure compliance with the city’s comprehensive plan and allowing them to conduct public hearings to review site plan applications would subject the city to additional attorney fees.
“I respect the planning commission and I love what they do, but this is our job and I don’t feel like giving my job up to another board,” Whitmore said.
Augello noted the planning commission is an advisory board, not a decision-making body. When conducting a quasi-judicial public hearing, the city commission could not use any evidence or testimony given at a planning commission hearing.
Augello agreed that a planning commission hearing would provide another layer of public input but it could also create additional legal complications if the city commission denies a site plan application and the applicant appeals the decision. Augello said the applicant could allege the city commission made its decision based on the planning commission review rather than the evidence and testimony presented directly to the city commission.
Augello said planning commission review of a site plan application could also create a “conflict in record evidence.” If something was presented at the planning commission hearing and not at the city commission hearing, that could create a potential deviation of information. Augello advised avoiding a “dual review” process for site plan applications and she suggested a similar approach for rezoning requests.
Commissioner Carol Soustek serves as the city commission’s planning commission liaison. She expressed her respect for the planning commission and their desire to review site plans but she agrees with Whitmore regarding the avoidance of additional attorney fees.
Commissioner Terry Schaefer noted subjecting site plan applications to a single public hearing provides the public with only one opportunity to provide their input.
The commission unanimously agreed to remove the planning commission’s recommended language and move forward toward final adoption of the ordinance as amended that day.
In a related action meant to solicit greater input from the city’s advisory boards, the commission agreed to place monthly advisory board reports on future commission meeting agendas.
After the city commission meeting, Minor sent a revision version of the ordinance to City Clerk Stacey Johnston, with the planning commission’s recommended language deleted.
Planning Commission Response
On Jan. 15, when reviewing the ordinance as amended the previous day, the planning commissioners expressed disappointment with the city commission’s decision, but they acknowledged the city attorney’s legal concerns. After much discussion, the planning commissioners unanimously agreed to reinsert the deleted language as a symbolic reiteration of their desire for greater transparency in the site plan review process – knowing the city commission will delete that language again before the ordinance is adopted on second reading.
Minor said he would never present a site plan application to the city commission that doesn’t comply with the city’s comprehensive plan and land development code. At the request of the planning commission, Minor agreed to post a notice at the city website when a major site plan application is received so the public has as much advance notice as possible.
