2023-06-01 Minutes1
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 1, 2023 6:00 PM 9900 BUILDING
1) CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Burch called the meeting to order at 6:03 PM.
2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/MOMENT OF SILENCE
3) ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor George Burch
Vice Mayor Jesse Valinsky
Councilmember Jerome Charles
Councilmember Daniel Marinberg
Councilmember Sandra Harris was absent.
Also Present:
Village Manager Esmond Scott
Village Attorney Sarah Johnston
Village Attorney Chanae Wood
Village Clerk Ysabely Rodriguez
4) PUBLIC COMMENTS
Janet Goodman asked the Village Council to consider a multifamily designation for 10500 Biscayne
Boulevard Property. Ms. Goodman asked the Village Council to consider reducing the density on said
property.
Carol Eannace Respondek echoed Ms. Goodman’s comments and asked Council to consider a height
restriction that would not be higher than the condominium building across Biscayne and 105th Street.
Regarding the downtown district along NE 2nd Ave, Ms. Respondek asked Council to maintain the
downtown district the same restricted commercial designation, not mixed-use. Lastly, she asked for the
protection of the parking lot designation to ensure residents have a buffer for their houses.
2
Evan Lee Park expressed interest in learning more about the designation of the Barry University vacant
land and further expressed support for maintaining the single-family charm of Miami Shores Village.
Neil Cantor echoed Janet Goodman and Carol Respondek’s comments.
Village Clerk Rodriguez read eComments into the record.
5) DISCUSSION & POSSIBLE ACTION
5.A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE
MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (SPONSORED BY: MAYOR GEORGE BURCH).
Mayor Burch provided an overview of the working documents.
Councilmember Charles indicated that he asked the Village Clerk to disseminate a working document,
which is a base to proceed with discussions, to the Village Council. Councilmember Charles indicated
the working document is based on the 2018 adopted version. It takes into consideration resident concerns
from previous versions and professional recommendations from staff. Mayor Burch indicated Ms. Sarah
McSherry, Village resident, authored the document.
Responding to Councilmember Charles’ inquiry, Attorney Johnston clarified because of the regulatory
nature of the comprehensive plan amendment process and noticing requirements, official action cannot
be taken on this item at such meeting. The draft comprehensive plan would need to come back for a
public hearing after it has gone before the local planning agency (LPA) and is duly noticed.
Councilmember Marinberg explained the responsibility of the Planning & Zoning Board, as the local
planning agency, is to provide recommendations to the Village Council, not vice versa.
Discussion ensued regarding the possible timeline regarding the comprehensive plan amendments and
the EAR process.
Attorney Johnston clarified the Village would still have to comply with statutory requirements affecting the
comprehensive plan amendments irrespective of the EAR process. Attorney Johnston indicated there is
no way the ordinance may be adopted (LPA public hearing and two Council public hearings, including
60-day DEO review between first and second readings) before July 1, 2023.
Vice Mayor Valinsky explained the purpose of the meeting is to openly discuss the comprehensive plan
to understand the various viewpoints without taking official action.
Discussion ensued on whether the intention is to host additional resident workshops and get public input
as had been requested by the residents in light of the new document.
Single-family residential:
Attorney Johnston advised against the Village Council reducing existing development rights, as the
Village may be subject to a takings challenge.
Claudia Hasbun, Planning and Zoning director, clarified the maximum height for all dwelling units as a
single-family home is 30 feet. Ms. Hasbun explained the height is measured from the grade.
Responding to Mayor Burch, Ms. Hasbun clarified she has not received any height variance requests
pertaining to single-family homes.
Responding to Councilmember Marinberg’s inquiry on non-confirming properties, Ms. Hasbun clarified
non-conformities were addressed within a couple of policies that have been included in the working
3
document. Ms. Hasbun clarified the range suggested by Calvin Giordano & Associates (CGA) was
between six to ten dwelling units to help address non-conforming properties. Then at some point, Ms.
Hasbun clarified it was limited to nine dwelling units per acre to ensure all the single-family homes lots
will be conforming.
Consensus:
- leave six (6) dwelling units per acre.
Multi-family residential:
Discussion ensued regarding Mayor Burch’s recommendation regarding a density change to 20 dwelling
units per acre, height restriction of 40 feet, and 1.0 FAR. Mayor Burch retracted the 1.0 FAR
recommendation.
Vice Mayor Valinsky asked the Council to consider changing the density to 18 dwelling units per acre.
The majority of the Village Council agreed to reduce the density to 18 dwelling units per acre.
Mayor Burch asked Council to consider adding two words: “use” and “intensity” to the above-noted
language.
Mixed Use Residential/Institutional:
Discussion ensued regarding the vacant land owned by Barry University. Ms. Hasbun was asked to
research the density of said property when it was a dog track and County-zoned.
Discussion ensued regarding the appropriate dwelling units per acre. Ms. Hasbun clarified the current
zoning designation is S1 and there is no FAR in the zoning district. However, Village Attorney Johnston
clarified the comprehensive plan indicates the FAR is 2.0.
Councilmember Marinberg asked whether the Village is susceptible to possible claims if the FAR is
lowered to 1.0. Village Attorney Wood answered in the affirmative.
Consensus: No changes (6 dwelling units per acre and 2.0 FAR)
Restricted commercial:
Councilmember Marinberg spoke in opposition to the proposed amendments, indicating it would render
every single building in the downtown district non-conforming.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed change from mixed-use to restricted commercial. Ms. Hasbun
recommended for the Village Council to view a clean version of the 2018 comprehensive plan.
Vice Mayor Valinsky asked for clarification regarding deed restrictions. Ms. Hasbun clarified should an
applicant propose a higher FAR, the deed restricts the property from going higher than 1.0.
Ms. Hasbun clarified there’s a FAR range of 1.0-3.0 in the Downtown District and the design of structure
determines the applicable FAR.
There was consensus to postpone discussions regarding height restrictions affecting the Downtown
District until the joint workshop between the Village Council and the Planning & Zoning Board.
4
General Commercial:
Mayor Burch proposed a 40-foot height restriction for general commercial.
Ms. Hasbun clarified the pending amendment to the comprehensive plan, which passed on first
reading, has a proposed 2.0 FAR.
Councilmember Marinberg indicated the current height permitted in general commercial is 50 feet. He
further spoke in opposition to the 1.0 FAR, indicating further reductions may create legal challenges.
Discussion ensued on reducing the FAR to 1.0 and the height restriction to 40 feet.
Vice Mayor Valinsky expressed hesitancy in reducing the height restriction to 40 feet.
Consensus:
- 1.0 FAR
Institutional:
Councilmember Marinberg asked the Council and staff to consider allowing places of worship to use
their parking area to generate revenue. Councilmember Marinberg indicated he would need to conduct
research and get back to Council.
Vice Mayor Valinsky expressed interest in learning about Councilmember Marinberg’s proposal.
Consensus:
- No proposed changes
Parks & Recreation:
Councilmember Charles asked for clarification on which parks is this section referring to when it states
that 50% of the land area on the individual park and general development within this category shall be
low intensity in character with a minimum of impervious surface coverage retained as much as natural
vegetation and landscape as possible.
Mayor Burch asked whether 50% is a realistic percentage.
Responding to the inquiries, Ms. Hasbun indicated such language is vague because it talks about the
extent of all incidental uses shall not exceed 50%. Therefore, currently, the Council may expand it. Ms.
Hasbun asked the Council if they would like for the proposed language to be amended to apply to any
structure within a facility, within a park or do they want to define it as a land area that is 50%.
The Village Council asked staff to prepare data on whether there are any parks that may be negatively
affected if the percentage was reduced to 15%.
Water and Conservation Areas:
Consensus-
- No changes
5
Parking:
Councilmember Charles, Vice Mayor Valinsky, and Mayor Burch spoke in support of including a parking
land use designation.
Councilmember Marinberg provided insight regarding Calvin Giordano & Associates’ (CGA) intent when
they removed the parking land use designation, clarifying CGA believes parking is not typically a use that
is independent enough to stand on its own. Councilmember Marinberg further clarified it is an ancillary
use to other types of uses, as it's usually just incidental to the adjacent use.
Mayor Burch indicated the inclusion of a parking designation is important because parking lots provide a
buffer between the residential properties located within the district.
Responding to Vice Mayor Valinsky’s inquiry regarding the type of buffers proposed by the previous
Council, Councilmember Marinberg explained the buffer was to be maintained by landscaping, setback
requirements, and the parking requirements that were going to be built into the zoning code was going
to render those as only parking without calling it parking as the land use designation.
Staff was asked to determine whether the Village is receiving any income in taxes from any of the parking
areas.
Consensus:
- to include parking as a land use designation.
Policies:
Discussion ensued regarding the various policies.
Mayor Burch noted a scrivener’s error affecting Policy 1.6, Section C, “the Village shall consider the
existing Miami Dade County comprehensive plan and zoning regulations and when developing new
designs for areas,” thereby striking through “and.”
Village Attorney Johnston clarified numbering of Policy 1.2 needs to be fixed.
Referencing Policy 1.3, Mayor Burch proposed adding the term “use” to intensity and density. For
consistency purposes, Ms. Hasbun indicated, in policy 1.2, it will read, "Buildings, or structures, or uses
previously approved by the village council…"
Objective 2: Protection of single-family residential areas.
Councilmember Marinberg recommended to strike through “Developments, buildings, and it should just
have been left as it is. The Village Council decided to revisit this section.
Objective 3:
Councilmember Charles recommended defining the term blighted.
Under policy 3.1, Village Attorney Wood indicated there is a clear definition of blighted. It describes
neighborhoods that have deficiencies or deterioration. However, the original definition was stricken
through. Village Attorney Wood further recommended for the retention of the existing language so the
Council has a clear understanding of how you're defining blighted.
6
Vice Mayor Valinsky raised concerns with the term “deterioration,” advocating for a term that better
reflects blighted conditions.
Councilmember Marinberg proffered the following language to the definition of blighted: “a building is
blighted if it is unsafe, unsanitary, or otherwise determined to threaten health, safety, or general welfare
of the community.”
Consensus: to include such language to better define blighted.
Councilmember Charles asked staff and Council to consider a better definition of the Biscayne Kennel
Club property.
Policy 4.2 –
Under non-confirming uses, Councilmember Charles recommended staff to use "structure" instead of
"uses." Responding to Councilmember Charles, Ms. Hasbun indicated it is best to add the phrase “non-
conforming uses and structures,” because staff may deal with both or independently.
Councilmember Marinberg with the proposed language under Policy 4.2.
Ms. Hasbun further asked Council to consider changing the term "land development regulations”
throughout the document, as the Village has been consistent in calling it zoning code in its governing
documents.
Councilmember Marinberg asked staff to research the non-conforming language in zoning code and
report findings.
Councilmember Charles recommended removing the following language under Policy 5.10: “The Village
shall facilitate calculations through the zoning code that implements and track the management and
storage of surface water in a residential area.” There was consensus to remove such language.
Policy 6.3-
Councilmember Charles recommended amending this section by removing County and adding the term
local or Village.
- “Historic resources shall continue to be protected through designation by the Village County or the
State.”
Discussion ensued regarding historic landmark designations.
Consensus: to amend the section as detailed above.
The Village Council called a brief recess at 8:19 PM and resumed the meeting at 8:25 PM.
Mayor Burch expressed interest in including the white paper from the Miami Shores Resiliency and
Sustainability as Chapter 11 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Hasbun clarified the Property Rights Elements will be included as part of Chapter 4.
Under policy 10.2, there was consensus to reflect the Village is currently an age-friendly community
and will continue to observe its standards.
7
“The Village shall continue to promote adopt and implement an age friendly community initiative. An
age friendly initiative would plan for will allow the Village to become a community for where people of all
ages, where older adults in Miami-Dade can stay are able to live active and healthy lives for as long as
possible with dignity and enjoyment by creating and adopting long-term policies which affect, through
age-supportive community health and development patterns, building design, accessibility to services,
and opportunities to stay engaged and to contribute.”
Responding to Vice Mayor Valinsky’s comments regarding DEO’s feedback, Ms.Wilson, Deputy City
Manager, indicated if the desire is to maintain the ORC report based on the existing review that DEO just
completed, then the Village would have to then return the document and respond to some of these
comments that have been raised. For instance, if the Council removed mixed-use, such designation no
longer exists. If the will and pleasure, however, is to terminate that pending review and start afresh, then
the ORC report then becomes null and void. Therefore, the Council would need to decide on the
approach.
Discussion ensued on hosting a workshop on June 15, 2023, beginning at 6:00 Pm to discuss the first
six (6) chapters of the comprehensive plan.
6) ADJOURNMENT
The workshop adjourned at 8:51 PM
Village Council Special Call Meeting
Meeting Time: 06-01-23 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
Village Council Special Call Meeting 06-01-23
18:00
7 7 2 2 1
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented
will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Village Council Special Call Meeting
06-01-23 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
4) PUBLIC COMMENTS 7 2 2 1
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented
will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for 4) PUBLIC COMMENTS
Overall Sentiment
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 3:06pm 06-01-23
Antonio Chiarella
10666 NE 10th Place
I am writing today to request our council members to please respect the wishes of the majority of the voters and
villagers who, in a very resounding way, sent an almost mandate to ensure the process for any potential future
growth, comes only after conducting proper, independent studies on how that growth may impact our way of life
here at the Shores. We, the village residents and property owner deserve to fully understand how our traffic,
schools, environment, emergency and police response, crime rates, etc. will be impacted by such growth. Those
studies must be made by an independent entity. During the election process I talked to a lot of village residents
as part of the campaign, and almost all of the residents are not opposed to growth and change. However most of
those same residents expressed that such change has to come backed by the proper studies, and also
respecting the residential, single family home, traditional character of our village. Please, let's drive forward with
facts, respecting the real wishes of the majority of the residents (the vote is the real evidence) and don't allow
irrelevant buss words such as "vibrant downtown", "silent majority", "legacy old residents" and many more to
enter in our conversation. Thank you very much.
Anne-Camille Hersh
Location:
Submitted At: 2:56pm 06-01-23
My name is Anne-Camille Hersh at 102 NE 109th Street. I am am unable to be present tonight but as I've said in
the past, I am not in favor of extreme growth in our village the way it has been presented to us in the past without
reasonable numbers backing up what our village can sustain. Instead, I am in favor of REASONABLE growth and
cleaning our land map use in alignment with what was discussed at the November workshop. Thank you for
taking the time to revisiting it tonight and making sure the proper barrier to overdevelopment are put in place to
protect our wonderful community.
Daniel Brady
Location:
Submitted At: 2:25pm 06-01-23
Thank you for this opportunity to review issues relating to the adoption of the Miami Shores Comprehensive Plan.
As I understand it, the 2018 comprehensive plan is the current “governing” document. Going through the various
amendments the Council approved on the “draft” plan is somewhat difficult and probably relates to part of the
general confusion regarding the plan.
In offering some recommendations for the plan I would suggest the following. One, leave the area initially
identified as the Biscayne Corridor out of the plan as is the current status. Two, maintain the current zoning of the
Biscayne/105 and west property as currently zoned, multifamily.
With the exception of the Downtown area, I would suggest that you give more thought the multi-use element. The
multi-use element is a planner’s conceptualization. Combine where we live, shop, and play into a single area and
create a more enriched urban environment. I don’t believe the prior dog track area is large enough to create an
enough customers and the Barry’s plan is to create a multi-family development. Also given the State’s request to
outline the proportion of the three elements (originally included, but later removed) only delays final action.
Whatever the decision, the density and height currently in the draft plan for this area is to great and to high.
The Shores Preserve (south of 90th Street) and two residential developments (west of 16th Avenue and 108
street) present attractive low rise apartment/condo developments that would be ideal for this site.
Best luck in creating a document that everyone can be proud of.
Joseph Raia
Location:
Submitted At: 2:02pm 06-01-23
Good evening - this is Joseph Raia at 1180 NE 97th Street - I believe changing the already approved
comprehensive plan components is irresponsible considering that the county approved our plan despite it not
aligning with the county's comprehensive plan and we are already going to pass the state's deadline. If we decide
to start again, we will be subjected to the county's approval and will be required to add a density component in an
area along Biscayne Blvd that is far less desirable than the proposed site by the highway. Unfortunately, with the
state legislature's recent change in law, the county can pre-empt our municipal authority if the property is within a
certain distance of their transit plan and require a higher density development. Additionally, with the passage of
SB102, municipalities and counties will be mandated to comply with certain developments that fit within the
already approved development guidelines regardless of zoning, density and height restrictions if it is in a
commercial of industrial zone and has a certain amount of moderate income housing units under 120% AMI
(which is approx. $123K for a family of 4). I don't believe it is in our village's best interest to spend money for legal
costs on fighting what is already a compromise with the county when we have other priorities and required
investments for our village's limited funds. I also would like to avert our village missing out on grants and other
forms of funding by not having an approved and conforming comprehensive plan. I wish our village had more
rights to self govern and determine how and where we grow but unfortunately we will need to work within the
bounds of the new legislative landscape. Thank you
Robert Menge
Location:
Submitted At: 10:36am 06-01-23
Good evening Mr. Mayor, council members and village staff.
I fully support your efforts to fix the Comprehensive Plan and FLUM, as was discussed at several meetings at the
Country Club when residents attended and were allowed to provide their input to Fix the plan. The 2018 plan has
adequate language to protect the Village Character, however the mixed use multifamily designation needs to be
severely refined, and allowed only in commercial areas, not in areas surrounded by residential units (single
family/multifamily zoning designations).
Mixed use definition needs to define the type of businesses allowed in multifamily areas, and restrict certain types
of businesses, by allowing input from the surrounding residents affected. It needs to define what type should be
allowed, the hours of operation, noise levels and parking requirements.
Again please be aware that there are no time limits or penalties regarding the Comprehensive Plan revision
submission
I am also concerned that the Village Attorney's, and administrative staff have not been able to provide accurate
information and facts to the council members on many of the items pending for the council to vote upon. There
are traffic control studies, flooding, and Environmental Vulnerability reports, that have been done years ago and
not been followed or implemented.
They may need more time to review, investigate and provide other funding sources to the residents and the
council. more Information needs to be provided as to funding availability, and shortages to implement the
recommendations and have a Village storm water plan with a schedule for review and completion.
I thank you for your service to the residents of the Village.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 8:27pm 05-31-23
Toni McCormick here-
Thankful I am to have hope for a return to a Comprehensive Plan without the burdens brought by mixed use
designations.
I trust this council to provide clarification requested by our state office in the plan without disrupting our mostly
single family residential neighborhood.
Miami Shores has a more vibrant downtown area than it has had since the sixties. The advent of malls lured
villagers away from local shops. Today many people shop through Amazon or other home deliveries. If our
downtown were any more active we would hear complaints about the increased traffic etc.
Let’s just count our blessings!
Thank you for your kind attention to these matters.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 2:13pm 05-31-23
Why is the Council so enthusiastic about rushing the Comp Plan and again railroading the residents by not
holding the community meetings and outreach that were promised to us by all of the candidates in the last
election? There are no financial penalties in taking our time and getting the Comp Plan right. There are no
drawbacks in taking our time and getting the Comp Plan right. There are no valid reasons to rush the process.
Before the approval of the Comp Plan on first reading, the three newest Councilmembers (Burch, Valinsky and
Charles) all provided public comments asking for the process to be slowed down to allow for more public input via
workshops, but instead it appears that they are deciding to do it all themselves and keep the residents out of the
process. I urge you all to schedule a new workshop on the Future Land Use Map, and to schedule another
workshop to review the Comp Plan Elements. This is not a time to rush. We all heard you say it during the
election - now please act on it. Thank you. Ludwig Perl