Loading...
RESOLUTION 92-20539 RESOLUTION NO. 92-20539 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, SETTING A HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING BOARD NOT TO AMEND THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ORDINANCE NO. 89-2664) AND NOT TO AMEND THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 89-2665 TO PERMIT RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN RESIDENTIAL SINGLE- FAMILY ZONED DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, at the request of the City Commission, the Planning Board of the City of Miami Beach, Florida held a public hearing on May 18, 1992 to consider whether or not to recommend amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance to permit religious institutions in residential single-family zoned districts; and WHEREAS,at the conclusion of that hearing the Planning Board voted unanimously 7-0 to recommend to the City Commission that said Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance not be amended to permit religious institutions in residential single-family zoned districts; and WHEREAS, the City Administration wishes to have clear direction from the City Commission as to how the City of Miami Beach should proceed on this matter. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that a hearing to consider the aforementioned recommendation from the Planning Board is hereby called to be held before the City Commission in its chambers on the Third Floor of City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach,Florida on July 22, 1992 beginning at 4:00 p.m.;and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish an appropriate Public Notice of the said Public Hearing, in a newspaper of general paid circulation in the county and of general interest and readership in the community, at which time and place all interested parties may be heard. PASSED AND AD 0 'TED this 8th day of July ,1992. / t0) 1 / YO' ATTEST: 6AAL,AA E f-PrTok,,,,„. CITY CLERK fi-f,SlyL,,, commisn\resrelig.92 FORM APPROVED LEGAL DEPT. w By (4244a, Z ,56/zutie,i a ..ate._-'- erJ‘ i , CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER TELEPHONE: (305) 673-7010 FAX: (305) 673-7782 COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. DATE: July 8, 1992 TO: Mayor Seymour Gelber and Members of the City Commission '&°L--- FROM: Roger M. Carlt• City Manager SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ALLOWING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS/PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION- SETTING OF PUBLIC HEARING ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION The City Administration recommends that the City Commission hold a public hearing at its July 22, 1992 meeting to consider the Planning Board's recommendation not to modify the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan to permit religious institutions in single family districts. BACKGROUND On March 4, 1992, the City Commission directed the Planning Board to hold a public hearing to consider in concept whether the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance 89- 2665 should be amended to allow religious institutions in single family residential districts. The issue has arisen out of long-standing litigation concerning the operation of the Grosz property at 3401 Prairie Avenue as a religious institution, as well as similar situations which have recently occurred. The Planning Board held a public hearing on May 18, 1992 and voted unanimously , 7-0, to recommend against any modifications to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance to permit religious institutions in single family districts. Please note that this hearing was not an actual rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment hearing. If the Commission determines that, in concept, religious institutions should be considered to be permitted in single family districts, proposed text amendments and additional public notifications and hearings by the Planning Board would have to take place; the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would also have to be reviewed by the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs. In 1977, Rabbi Naftali and Sara Grosz purchased a single family home at 3401 Prairie Avenue for use as their principal residence. The property was and still is zoned RS-4, Single Family Residential. Rabbi Naftali Grosz and his son, Rabbi Armin Grosz, have conducted religious services at this location since shortly after its purchase. The City of Miami Beach began citing the Grosz's for violation of the Zoning Ordinance in 1979, since religious institutions are not permitted in any single family districts. Civil litigation ensued, and in 1983, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that application of the zoning ordinance provision prohibiting organized religious services in single family districts did not violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. In August of 1990, the City filed for injunctive relief,since the Grosz home continued to be used for organized,twice-daily religious services. On September 19, 1990, the City Commission abated the lawsuit and asked Dr. Leonard Haber to investigate the situation to attempt to come up with a compromise between the Grosz's and their neighbors. Dr. Haber was not successful in this endeavor. -;S 1 AGENDA ITEM DATE In June, 1991, the City Commission heard Dr. Haber's report which concluded that the Commission had "... to decide whether to change the zoning law to bring it into compliance with what Rabbi Grosz is doing or to enforce the zoning law as it stands." The Commission voted unanimously to refer this matter to the Planning Board for consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment which would permit religious institutions in single family districts. The Planning and Zoning Department,as staff to the Planning Board, subsequently studied the issue of places of worship in single family areas, and their analysis was presented to the City Commission on March 4, 1992. The Commission, in turn, referred the matter back to the Planning Board, which voted unanimously, on May 18, 1992, to recommend against any modifications to the Comprehensive Pan and Zoning Ordinance to permit religious institutions in single family districts. CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS 1977: Rabbi Grosz purchased a single family home at 3401 Prairie Avenue and began holding religious services at least twice a day, with in excess of 50 persons attending on occasion. 1979: CMB Code Enforcement officers began to cite the Grosz's for zoning violations for operating a religious institution in a single family neighborhood. 1981-82: Litigation/trial - U.S. District Court. 12/19/83: U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that application of the zoning ordinance to prohibit the Grosz's from using their residence for organized religious services, was not violative of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. 1988: Rabbi Grosz applied for and received a building permit and constructed an addition to the residence at 3401 Prairie Avenue. According to the Haber report, the addition is now being used to accommodate religious services for as many as 40 or 50 people. The City advised Rabbi Grosz at the time of building permit approval that he could not use the addition for religious services. Rabbi Grosz appears to have noticed the City of his intent to create the space for social or recreational purposes, and he did not apply for permission to use the newly created space for religious purposes or apply for a change in zoning to permit such religious services. 1990: CMB Code Enforcement Division issued new citations against the Grosz's for violation of the zoning oidinance. 8/31/90: City filed for injunctive relief re: use of 3401 Prairie Avenue for organized, twice-daily religious services in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. 9/19/90: Miami Beach City Commission held a hearing to discuss the Grosz case. Speakers included several supporters of Rabbi Grosz, who stated that the home is not a synagogue - it is a "shtiebal", which is described as a small version of a "shul" - more like a prayer and study group than a synagogue which has other uses such as social activities, Bat Mitzvah's and Bar Mitzvah's, and weddings. At the conclusion of the hearing, Mayor Alex Daoud requested that the lawsuit be delayed pending a review of the situation by Dr. Leonard Haber, the City Psychologist. 3/5/91: Dr. Leonard Haber submitted a report(see attached) to the City on CMB v.Grosz (copy attached), in which he summarized his attempts to look into a possible solution to this issue. Dr. Haber interviewed Rabbi Grosz and his congregants as well as neighbors in opposition to the use of the Grosz home as a place of worship. He was unable to get the two parties to reach any agreements. The report concludes with Dr. Haber's formal recommendation, which is as follows: "There is no simple solution to this bitter dispute and dilemma which has been ongoing in excess of ten years and yet the plain conclusion after all the investigation,conversation and mediation has been completed is to say that it falls to the City Commission to decide whether to change the zoning law to bring it into compliance with what Rabbi Grosz is doing or to enforce the zoning law as it stands." 2 6/19/91: City Commission heard the Grosz issue again. Commissioner Resnick requested that the Planning Board hear the issue of religious institutions in single family zoning districts in order to consider a zoning ordinance amendment to allow them as conditional uses. The City Commission voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The lawsuit remains abated. The Planning Board does not hear issue; based on an analysis from the Planning and Zoning Department finding a need to first amend the Comprehensive Plan, the Administration provided a report to the Commission on the issue (see 3/4/92). 3/4192: City Commission reviewed a report from the Administration on the Grosz issue. The City Administration recommended that the Commission adopt a resolution rescinding the previous Commission's 6/19/91 direction to proceed with Planning Board hearings on this issue, and to further authorize the City Attorney to resume litigation to prohibit the Grosz's from using a single family residence as a religious institution, in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The City Commission did not approve the resolution and directed the Planning Board to proceed with a hearing on the issue. 5/18/92: Planning Board held a public hearing to consider, in concept, whether religious institutions should be permitted in single family districts. They voted unanimously,7-0, to recommend against modifying the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance to permit religious institutions in single family districts. 5/27/92: Circuit Court Judge Juan Ramizez, Jr. dismissed the City's suit for injunctive relief due to the length of time it was abated. The dismissal was without prejudice and the City may file suit again at any time. ANALYSIS The Administration, through the Planning and Zoning Department, has reviewed the City Commission's 3/4/92 direction to consider religious institutions as conditional uses in single family zoning districts. This direction appears to directly conflict with several provisions set forth in the Housing Element of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance 89-2664), namely: Policy 1.2 - Prohibit non-residential uses in residential zoning districts in compliance with the provisions of s. 163.3202, F.S., to prevent conversion or redevelopment of residential structures to non-residential uses. Objective 6 - Conserve the City's stock of single-family houses (attached and detached) by maintaining a minimum of 35% of the City's total land area (excluding rights-of-way) in zoning districts which permit only single-family houses (attached and detached), recreational facilities and municipal uses. Policy 6.1 - The City's zoning ordinance will provide that a minimum of 35% of the City's total land area (excluding rights-of-way) will be zoned to permit only single-family houses (attached and detached), recreational facilities and municipal uses. The supporting documents to the Comprehensive Plan set forth the rationale behind the adoption of the above-mentioned objective and policies. As is noted in the Housing Element support document,there is a strong need to retain and,in fact, increase the City's housing stock of three bedroom+ units, which consist primarily of single family residences. Consequently, there should be no attempts to convert single-family uses into non-residential uses, due to the City's need to provide larger unit types to accommodate the projected population. It is therefore the Planning and Zoning Department's administrative interpretation that such an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would necessitate an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; the City Attorney is in agreement with this interpretation. This process takes approximately nine months and requires State approval of the proposed amendments. State law only allows the Plan to be amended twice a year. Advertising costs would be in the $10,000 to $12,000 range. In addition to reviewing the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning and Zoning Department researched planning literature pertaining to zoning for religious institutions in other communities. The department's conclusions indicate that the criteria most frequently used to govern the placement of religious institutions in low-density residential areas are simply not practicable when applied to the particular situation in Miami Beach, which is nearly 100% developed. For example, most cities require minimum lot sizes of two to five acres for religious institutions in single family zoned areas, with 50 foot setbacks along all residential 3 ,,,7 lot lines.They also require adequate on-site parking. Still others limit the location of religious institutions within such residential zones with the proviso that they are adjacent to major arterial or collector streets (e.g. Alton Road, Pine Tree\LaGorce Drives, 71st Street\Normandy Drive are these types of streets). The literature clearly states that municipalities may prohibit religious institutions in single family zoning districts,especially when there are other districts nearby which do permit places of worship. This is the case in Miami Beach, where we have only small enclaves of single family neighborhoods with numerous multifamily and commercial areas nearby. In fact, religious institutions are presently permitted in 42% of the City's land area available for private development (excluding public property, the beach, and rights-of way). CONCLUSION Based upon the analysis presented herein, the Administration has concluded that there is sufficient land available in the City of Miami Beach where religious institutions may be permitted and that there is no legitimate hardship upon religious organizations in terms of finding suitable locations for their institutions. Further, religious institutions located in single family neighborhoods would reduce the housing stock available to larger families, would be in conflict with the express provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and would also potentially create difficulties in these neighborhoods in terms of noise, traffic, and parking. If the City Commission wishes to proceed with a Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan amendment to permit such uses, the Administration recommendation would be to permit religious institutional uses only as conditional uses with very strict mandatory standards for their operation in single family neighborhoods, in order to mitigate the negative impacts they would cause. These standards would most likely include minimum site sizes, on-site parking, no accessory uses, increased setbacks, etc. - standards which the Grosz residence would not be able to meet as it is presently built and functioning. If the City Commission should instruct the Administration and Legal Department to enforce the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan as they exist today, as well as the Court of Appeals ruling (see attached), the following course of action would ensue: 1. The City Attorney's Office would file suit in Dade County Circuit Court seeking injunctive relief (a court order prohibiting use of the Grosz property for organized religious services in violation of the City's Zoning Ordinance). A motion for temporary injunction would also be filed seeking immediate relief during the pendency of the litigation. 2. After obtaining a permanent in junction, the City would monitor the property for compliance. If the property is used in violation of the court order, the City would initiate contempt proceedings in Circuit Court to enforce the order. Based on the foregoing, the Administration has concluded that the City Commission should hold a public hearing on the Planning Board's recommendation this July, so that there can be a decision reached as to how the City of Miami Beach should proceed on this matter. RMC/DJG/SRP/hp Attachments commisn\grosz.92 4 RESOLUTION NO. 92-20539 Setting a hearing date to consider a recommendation by the Planning Board not to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance No. 89-2664) and not to amend the City's Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665 to permit Religious Institutions in -residential single-family zoned districts.