216 Pine Avenue P&Z hearing Jan 19, 2010

I've asked the Administration to reschedule this hearing, because the Administrative compliance review has been conducted improperly and the P&Z hearing has been scheduled improperly.

The facts that need to be put forth concerning these irregularities are:

1. The City is required to issue a written compliance review on any site plan applications. That review must state in writing a recommendation a site plan is approved, approved with conditions, or denied.

2. After that review has been completed, the City must schedule a hearing with the P&Z or the City Commission, depending on the particulars of the site plan.

3. The developer must publicly advertise at least 10 days before the date of the hearing, and notify by certificate of mail at least 30 days before the hearing, all neighbors within 500 ft. of the subject property. Both of these notices must take place after the site plan compliance recommendation is made by the Administration.

4. In early November, I expressed concern at a Commission meeting that PAR was trying to beat the system by submitting three site plans simultaneously. I suggested to the Mayor the system needed to respond. Chairman Quam suggested a moratorium on site plans may be desirable. Our City Attorney said that may be problematic. He stated that all issues in flux could be considered during the site plan review process and changes in the codes could be applied even if those changes were made after the date of the site plan submittal. He also recommended the City continue to process site plans in the normal manner, not expediting, and not deliberately slowing down the procedure.

5. The Administration has expedited the process. They scheduled the hearing with P&Z for 216 Pine before the compliance review was completed. That’s improper, therefore the hearing is illegitimate.

6. PAR has already mailed the notice letters to neighbors, and the hearing time and date has already been advertised in the Bradenton Herald.

7. For this to be done properly, the City must issue a signed, dated review of 216 Pine that includes a determination of approved, approved with conditions, or denied. The process needs to begin again, from that point. The advertising was done prematurely. The mailing was done prematurely.
Both should be redone.

8. Generally, it should be noted, the whole process regarding the site plan for 216 is unprofessional in the extreme. There are documents in the 216 file that are signed but not dated. The compliance review has a heading suggested it was done in January, but it also is not dated. There is correspondence between the developer and City staff not included in the file.

If, for some reason, the Administration should deny my request for rescheduling, I believe the Mayor has, once again. left us open to litigation.

Harry Stoltzfus

City of Anna Maria Commissioner