Loading...
LTC 050-2022 Update on the Recommendations of the Office of the Inspector General Regarding Report OIG 21-40 Pertaining to 310 Meridian AvenueLTC# 050-2022 J\J\IAMI City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov OFFICE OF TH E CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: LETTER TO COMMISS ION rs of the City Commission Alina T. Hudak, City Mana February 10, 2022 Update on the Recommendations of the Office of the Inspector General Regarding Report OIG 21-40 Pertaining to 310 Meridian Avenue On January 5, 2022, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released the final report on permitting questions regarding 310 Meridian Avenue (OIG No. 21-40). On January 20, 2022, the City Commission held a discussion regarding the specific recommendations of the OIG contained in the final report (item R9L), and passed a motion requesting the following: 1. The Administration provide updated responses to each of the recommendations of the OIG contained in Report OIG No. 21-40. 2. The City Manager review the findings of the OIG and the issuance of the permit and certificate of appropriateness for 310 Meridian Avenue, with the support of the City Attorney, and take all lawful actions necessary to comply with all applicable laws. SUMMARY As noted more specifically below and attached, the Administration is moving forward with a number of the recommendations of the OIG. In the context of an Inspector General Report that identified technical , procedural issues and no substantive violations of law, it is critically important that the integrity of our Inspector General be respected and that the Report not be misconstrued or misinterpreted, as neither the Inspector General, nor the Independent Counsel retained by the Inspector General, recommended that the existing building permit for 310 Meridian Avenue should be revoked. While sensitive to the concerns of the residents of the South of Fifth area, the rules and regulations governing the issuance of certificates of appropriateness and building permits are strictly regulated by the City Code, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Building Code. As such, the Administration is legally required to work within the framework of the rules and regulations that are currently in place. We simply do not have the authority to take action in contravention of the City Code and State Law. To do so would compromise the ethics and professional certifications of applicable City Officials, as well as place these officials, and the City, in a position of legal and financial exposure. In addition, neither the issuance of the certificate of appropriateness nor the issuance of the building permit have any bearing on the allowable use of the property. BACKGROUND On August 7, 2017, a building permit application was submitted for the partial demolition, renovation and restoration of the building located at 31 O Meridian Avenue, including a change of use from residential apartment to apartment hotel. The Building Permit (Permit No. BC1704920) and Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the project was issued by the City on December 16, 2019, and construction commenced at the site thereafter. This use of apartment-hotel was permitted as an allowable use in the underlying zoning district, at the time the building permit was issued . L TC -Update Independent Planning Review Apartment Hotels - February 10, 2022 Page 2 As it pertains to the issuance of this permit, the following is noted: • The existing building at 310 Meridian Avenue is located within the Ocean Beach Local Historic District and is classified as 'contributing'. As such, certificate of appropriateness (COA) review is required for any exterior improvements or modifications to the building or site. • COA review, either by the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) or by the staff to the board, is limited to the exterior components of a building and public interior spaces. Interior, non-public spaces are not within the scope of review for a COA, nor is the use of the building. A substantial portion of the work approved for 310 Meridian Avenue, and effectuated to date, consists of remodeling, renovation and upgrades to interior spaces; this includes the removal and replacement of interior floors and floor joists, interior non-load bearing partition walls, and interior fixtures and finishes. None of this interior work is subject to the GOA requirements set forth in Chapter 118, Article X of the LDRs. • The COA and building permit application for 310 Meridian was reviewed pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section 118-563( d) of the City Code, which establishes, in detail, the types of projects that are eligible for review by the staff to the HPB. • The scope of work in the permit application for 310 Meridian was well within the list of improvements set forth in Section 118-563( d). More importantly, staff's issuance of an administrative-level Certificate of Appropriateness was affirmed by the Board of Adjustment on January 7, 2022, following a neighboring property owner's appeal. • The current process for administrative-level COA review has been in place since 2000 and has included the review of thousands of applications. The COA review of the permit for 310 Meridian Avenue in no way deviated from this process. • The permit for 310 Meridian Avenue, which included the approved COA, was available for public review on the electronic permitting platform used by the city (Energov) and via the City's web page in the Citizen Self Service (CSS) portal, formerly the Citizens Access Portal (CAP), at the time of issuance on December 16, 2019. • All building permits are issued for 180 days. On March 9th, 2020, the Governor declared the first COVID state of emergency, which by law stops the clock on all building permits. On this date, the subject permit had been issued for 84 days, leaving a total of 96 days from the original 180 days from the issuance of the Permit. Once the COVID state of emergency was lifted on June 26th, 2021, the permit holder needed to either request and pass a site inspection prior to September 30, 2021 or invoke the additional 6 months as allowed per FS 252.363, which allows for permits tolled for the duration of the state of emergency declaration to be extended an additional six months. A permit inspection was scheduled and passed on August 12th, 2021 , which was prior to September 30, 2021. This action added 6 months to the permit, as allowed by Florida Building Code Section 105.4. Consequently, the subject permit has never expired. L TC -Update Independent Planning Review Apartment Hotels - February 10, 2022 Page3 On September 14, 2021, a Letter to the Commission (LTC} 381-2021 was published in connection with active permits to renovate and/or remodel existing apartment hotels at 3 separate addresses (310 Meridian Avenue, 226 Jefferson Avenue and 333 Jefferson Avenue). On October 12, 2021, adjacent property owners filed an appeal to the Board of Adjustment (BOA) regarding the COA issued for 310 Meridian Avenue. As noted above, on January 7, 2022, the BOA considered the appeal pertaining to 310 Meridian Avenue and voted (6-1) to deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Department's approval of the certificate of appropriateness. 1 The BOA's ruling is legally binding on the Planning Director. RESPONSE TO OIG FINDINGS Before we begin to discuss the OIG recommendations --which almost entirely involve technical, procedural issues and not any substantive violations of law --it is important to note that all of the Inspector General's recommendations are prospective in nature. In addition, both the OIG and its outside counsel conceded the authority of the Planning Director and the Building Official to make independent determinations under their respective Codes. The Planning Director is legally required to apply the Land Development Regulations, and the Building Official is legally required to apply the Florida Building Code. The decisions of these officials are appealable as provided by law. Moreover, in addition to addressing the findings the Inspector General made, it is equally important to note at the outset the findings and conclusions that the Inspector General and his independent counsel did not make. Specifically, nowhere does the Inspector General or his counsel suggest that the Inspector General's Draft Report should be used by the City or any other party as a basis to revoke the building permits at issue here, or that any technical, procedural issues noted in the Report would justify the revocation of a building permit. And to avoid any doubt as to this issue, the Inspector General confirmed these points on the record, in his comments as part of the discussion of this matter at the January 20, 2022 City Commission meeting. With respect to the findings the Inspector General did make, subsequent to the issuance of the draft OIG report on November 1, 2021, the Administration provided a direct response to the OIG recommendations, which was included in the final report of the OIG. Updated responses to the OIG recommendations are attached. REVIEW OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS In addition to providing updated responses to each of the OIG recommendations, attached, the City Commission has requested that the City Manager review the findings of the OIG and the issuance of the permit and certificate of appropriateness for 310 Meridian Avenue and take all lawful actions necessary to comply with all applicable laws. The following is a summary of the review of the two separate actions pertaining to the building permit issued for 310 Meridian Avenue. Certificate of Appropriateness. The building permit application was reviewed for a certificate of appropriateness in accordance with Section 118-563 of the LDR's and found to be in compliance with all applicable requirements. As noted in the background section of this memo, an appeal of this certificate of appropriateness was filed by 1 If the neighboring property owner who sought Board of Adjustment review disagrees with the Board of Adjustment's ruling, the neighbor may seek judicial review by filing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. Under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, the neighbor's deadline to appeal is February 18, 2022. L TC -Update Independent Planning Review Apartment Hotels - February 10, 2022 Page4 neighboring residents and considered by the Board of Adjustment (BOA) on January 7, 2022. The BOA denied the appeal and affirmed the certificate of appropriateness. The BOA Order was rendered on January 19, 2022, and forwarded to the affected parties, including legal counsel for the appellants. The appellants were further advised that the timeframe for filing an appeal of the BOA decision concludes on February 18, 2022. If no appeal of this matter is filed within this timeframe, the certificate of appropriateness will remain in effect. In light of the BOA's ruling which, again, is legally binding on the Planning Director, neither the City Manager, nor the Planning Director, can take any action inconsistent with the ruling. To do so would violate the requirements of the City Code, the City Charter, and the Related Special Acts. Building Permit It is important to note the distinction in the Florida Building Code (FBC) between permit applications and permits. The permit application is not relevant to the discussion of 310 Meridian Avenue. That said, the permit application extension process was modified to a 90-day extension in keeping with FBC stricter rules for permit applications, but not for permit extensions. An exact period for a permit extension is not stated in the FBC, as it pertains to conditions of permit. Under FBC 105.4, the timeline for permits is 180 days. Accordingly, the Building Official has concluded, after consultation with the Florida Building Commission and the County Boards of Rules and Appeals, that it is standard practice to allow for 6-month ( 180-day) extensions As noted in the background section of this memorandum, a building permit for the project was lawfully issued and lawfully extended and remains active. Notwithstanding the neighbor's appeal of the certificate of appropriateness, the Building Official is not authorized to revoke any building permit, unless it is determined that the plans are not in compliance with the Florida Building Code. Absent this circumstance, the Building Official is not authorized to revoke a lawfully issued building permit. Under Florida Law, the Building Official is the sole entity with the authority to render decisions regarding the issuance and revocation of Building Permits. Neither the City Manager, nor the City Commission, has the authority to direct or compel the Building Official to take specific action regarding the issuance or revocation of a Building Permit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an affected party who disagrees with a Building Official's determination pertaining to the issuance of a Building Permit may file an appeal to the Miami-Dade County Board of Rules and Appeals (BORA). To date, an appeal of the Building Official's decision pertaining to the permit issued to 310 Meridian Avenue has not been made. CONCLUSION In conclusion, it is worthwhile to reiterate the following points, most of which were raised by the Administration to the OIG and included in a similar form as an attachment to the OIG Final Report: • The application form previously used for the review of administrative level Certificates of Appropriateness was purely a clerical form and-aside from what is already required for building permit review-did not require any additional information or exhibits in relation to the substantive review of improvements proposed for a property. There has been quite a bit of analysis done, by multiple parties, regarding whether this separate form is indeed actually required . What has been lost in this dialogue, unfortunately, is the fact that the text information contained in this clerical L TC -Update Independent Planning Review Apartment Hotels - February 10, 2022 Page 5 form is already required to be provided, as part of a building permit application. More importantly, the application form, in no way, impacts the substantive review of the Certificate of Appropriateness (i.e., the actual architectural plans and exhibits that clearly show the nature of the exterior modifications and improvements). • The administrative level review of a Certificates of Appropriateness, conducted pursuant to Section 118-563, applies to certain types of rehabilitative/restorative work on the exterior of properties, as well as rehabilitative/restorative work within public interiors in very limited circumstances. The types of work that may be approved at the staff level are specifically identified in the Land Development Regulations. This review process has been carefully combined and coordinated with the building permit review process due to the sheer number of applications reviewed by Planning Department staff. The tight limits on the types of projects that are eligible for administrative level review were established to ensure that they are improvements that have minimal impact on the site and surrounding area. The current review process strikes a very careful balance between ensuring participation by affected parties and having an efficient permit review process. More importantly, Planning and Building Department staff have always made, and continue to make, a concerted effort to review all plans on an expedient basis. • The administrative level review of Certificates of Appropriateness, made pursuant to Section 118- 563, does not include, in any way, the review or approval of a use. The use of a property is dictated by the express requirements of the LDRs, and any modification to allowable uses can only be accomplished through a Code amendment, adopted by the City Commission following Planning Board review, two readings before the City Commission, and public hearings. Absent legislative action by the City Commission, the Administration does not have the authority to modify allowable uses within a given zoning district. • The goal of historic districts is to incentivize and encourage the restoration and renovation of contributing properties and buildings within a given district. When the rules and regulations governing the process by which buildings are renovated become onerous, it can have the effect of discouraging much needed renovations and restorations. Given the challenges the City is facing with regard to flooding, climate change and the condition of older buildings, a careful balance must continue to be achieved with regard to creating an equitable process for historic renovations and restoration projects. • A building permit for the project was lawfully issued and lawfully extended and remains active. Notwithstanding the neighbor's appeal of the certificate of appropriateness, the Building Official is not authorized to revoke any building permit, unless it is determined that the plans are not in compliance with the Florida Building Code. Absent this circumstance, the Building Official is not authorized to revoke a lawfully issued building permit. If there are any questions regarding the aforementioned responses to the OIG recommendations, or additional information is needed, please feel free to contact Eric Carpenter. ATH/ETC C: Rafael Paz, City Attorney Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk Joseph Centorino, Inspector General UPDATED RESPONSE TO OIG FINDINGS-FEBRUARY 101 2022 The OIG made seven (7) recommendations in the Draft Report. The following is a response to each recommendation: 1. The Planning and Building Departments, in consultation, should determine whether Section 118-562(b) of the Land Development Regulations should be amended to permit the Planning Department to approve administrative Certificates of Appropriateness on the building permit application or require a separate Certificate of Appropriateness application on a form prepared by the Planning Department (See Legal Opinion). Response: This recommendation is prospective only. Any amendment to Section 118-562 of the City Code to require a separate Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application form requires City Commission approval. As stated in this Code section, the COA application form is designated by the Planning Department, and they designated the building permit application as the application form. It is also important to note that in light of internal permit process adjustments made by the Planning Department, under the authority provided by the Code, as well as the fact that the LDR's do not have express requirements for a COA application form for administrative approvals, a separate application form was not submitted for the COA review of the permit associated with 310 Meridian Avenue, as one was not required. While there is a lack of consensus on this point, the record of approval for 310 Meridian Avenue clearly demonstrates that a substantive COA review took place and such review was not impacted, in any way, by not having a separate COA application form. Simply put, even if a separate COA application form had been provided, it would have had zero impact on the actual COA review and approval. Additionally, there would have been no public notice requirement for the COA administrative review pursuant to Section 118-563( d), even if a separate COA application form was included. Additionally, on December 8, 2021, the City Commission, at the request of the City Manager, referred a draft Ordinance to the Planning Board to clarify whether, for administrative-level Certificates of Appropriateness, a separate application form should be required, or the building permit application may serve as the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. This Ordinance is scheduled to be considered by the Planning Board on February 22, 2022, and First Reading is anticipated to be in March. When this draft Ordinance is discussed by the City Commission at First Reading, revised procedures regarding the posting of decisions pertaining to administrative level certificates of appropriateness can be considered. However, any potential Code amendments that expand the regulatory process pertaining to administrative approvals would need a fiscal impact evaluation, as well as an analysis of the impacts on the overall building permit review process. Given the current number of permit applications subject to administrative certificate of appropriateness review, which is currently over 1,000 per year, the efficiencies in place allow for a careful balance between thoroughly reviewing plans and allowing for a reasonable permit timeframe. 2. The City should amend Article X of the Land Development Regulations to clearly state and require that in the cases of administrative review of a Certificate of Appropriateness performed pursuant to Section 118-563( d) of the Land Development Regulations, the Planning Director, or designee, shall issue a written decision as to the approval, denial, or conditions imposed with respect to a Certificate of Appropriateness, including whether said decision involved subsections 118-563(d)(1) and 118-563(d)(3), so that the same can be appealed by affected persons as provided by Section 118-563(e) and 118-9 of the Land Development Regulations (See Legal Opinion). Response: This recommendation is prospective only. By way of reference, The following is the verbatim text from Section 118-563(d) & (e): (d) Notwithstanding subsections 118-563(a) through (c) above, all applications for certificates of appropriateness involving minor repairs, demolition, alterations and improvements (as defined below and by additional design guidelines to be adopted by the board in consultation with the planning director or designee) shall be reviewed by the staff of the board. The staff shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a certificate of appropriateness or a certificate to dig after the date of receipt of a completed application. Such minor repairs, alterations and improvements include the following: (1) Ground level additions to existing structures, not to exceed two stories in height, which are not substantially visible from the public right-of-way (excluding rear alleys), any waterfront or public parks, provided such ground level additions do not require the demolition or alteration of architecturally significant portions of a building or structure. For those lots under 5,000 square feet, the floor area of the proposed addition may not exceed 30 percent of the floor area of the existing structure or primary lot, whichever is less, with a maximum total floor area not to exceed 1,500 square feet. For those lots between 5,000 square feet and 10,000 square feet, the floor area of the proposed addition may not exceed 20 percent of the floor area of the existing structure or primary lot, whichever is less, with a maximum total floor area not to exceed 2,000 square feet. For those lots greater than 10,000 square feet, the floor area of the proposed addition may not exceed 10 percent of the floor area of the existing structure or primary lot, whichever is less, with a maximum total floor area not to exceed 5,000 square feet. (2) Replacement of windows, doors, storefront frames and windows, or the approval of awnings, canopies, exterior surface colors, storm shutters and signs. (3) Facade and building restorations, recommended by staff, which are consistent with historic documentation, provided the degree of demolition proposed is not substantial or significant and does not require the demolition or alteration of architecturally significant portions of a building or structure. (4) Minor demolition and alterations to address accessibility, life safety, mechanical and other applicable code requirements, provided the degree of demolition proposed is not substantial or significant and does not require the demolition or alteration of architecturally significant portions of a building or structure. (5) Minor demolition and alterations to rear and secondary facades to accommodate utilities, refuse disposal and storage, provided the degree of demolition proposed is not substantial or significant and does not require the demolition or alteration of architecturally significant portions of a building or structure. (e) Any decision of the planning director regarding subsections 118-563(d)(1) and 118- 563{d){3), may be appealed to the board of adjustment pursuant to the requirements of section 118-9. The City Code does not expressly require the publishing of decisions made on COA applications reviewed pursuant to Section 118-563(d) on a specific platform. While there is a lack of consensus on this point, the COA was properly reviewed in accordance with Section 118-563(d) of the City Code, and the building permit was lawfully issued. Even if an appeal of the COA related to 310 Meridian Avenue was filed following issuance of the building permit in 2019, such appeal would only have pertained to the limited scope of exterior work approved pursuant to Section 118-563( d) and would not apply to the use of the property. Notwithstanding, affected property owners adjacent to 310 Meridian Avenue were able to file an appeal of the COA, as more specifically noted in the background section above. An amendment to modify the review and appeal process for administrative level Certificates of Appropriateness applications would require legislative action by the City Commission. The draft Ordinance referred to the Planning Board on December 8, 2021, includes clarifying language regarding the procedural requirements for appeals from staff-level Certificates of Appropriateness. This Ordinance is scheduled to be considered by the Planning Board on February 22, 2022, and First Reading is anticipated to be in March. When this draft Ordinance is discussed by the City Commission at First Reading, revised procedures regarding the posting of decisions pertaining to administrative level certificates of appropriateness can be considered. However, any potential Code amendments that expand the regulatory process pertaining to administrative approvals would need a fiscal impact evaluation, as well as an analysis of the impacts on the overall building permit review process. Given the current number of permit applications subject to administrative certificate of appropriateness review, which is currently over 1,000 per year, the efficiencies in place allow for a careful balance between thoroughly reviewing plans and allowing for a reasonable permit timeframe. 3. The Energov system should be updated, or different software purchased, that would generate a report detailing the administrative review process. That report should be published on the website in compliance with the Code. This matter has exposed the public's inability to access the necessary information to appeal decisions that are made administratively, which could impact their neighborhoods and quality of life. It has also called into question the transparency and accountability of the Planning Department. While the OIG appreciates that resources are required to publish every administrative decision, the citizens' right to know is paramount. The Planning Director has acknowledged this deficiency. Response: This recommendation is prospective only. As noted above, an amendment to modify the review and appeal process for administrative level Certificates of Appropriateness applications would require legislative action by the City Commission. The administrative level decisions that have been scrutinized as part of this review involve exterior improvements to a building, which are minor in nature. It must be emphasized that the administrative level decisions made pursuant to Subsection 118-563 pertain to exterior components of a building or property only, and do not apply to allowable uses. Although the Planning Director has not characterized the current process as being deficient, additional clarity regarding administrative appeals in Section 118-9 is needed. The draft Ordinance referred to the Planning Board on December 8, 2021, clarifies the procedural requirements for appeals from staff-level Certificates of Appropriateness, and takes into account the need for a careful balance between thoroughly reviewing plans and allowing for a reasonable permit timeframe. Additionally, the Administration is working on a separate report that identifies permit applications that have been approved for an administrative level certificate of appropriateness. It is anticipated that such a report will be able to be published on a weekly basis, to provide better access to applications approved administratively. 4. The permitting software should include a menu option that indicates whether the building is in a historic district, contributing structure, conforming or non-conforming. This would require more information from an applicant and provide the Planning Department with critical information for their reviews. Response: This recommendation is prospective only. When a property address is typed into a permit application in Energov, applicable overlays, including historic districts, are automatically generated, and available to the reviewer. With regard to adding a layer for contributing buildings, that can be further explored , but would need to be linked to the City's historic properties database. This would likely require the participation of the City's vendor, Tyler, in designing such an interface, as well as potentially having to create a new program for the City's historic properties database. If directed by the City Commission, the Administration can explore this recommendation further. As it pertains to identifying non-conforming structures, creating a layer to distinguish between conforming and nonconforming buildings would be exceedingly difficult and time consuming, as a separate analysis of every structure in the City would need to be conducted. Additionally, the conforming status of buildings, citywide, changes whenever LOR amendments are adopted that affect the physical characteristics of properties (e.g., modifying setbacks and building height). More importantly, whether a building is conforming, or non-conforming is a formal determination of fact and can be challenged by a property owner if a request for such determination is made. For these reasons, the Administration strongly recommends NOT creating a layer pertaining to the conforming status of a building . 5. The City should amend its Land Development Regulations to revise the definition of apartment hotel (or other antiquated terms) to reflect the Planning Department's longstanding interpretation concerning inner lobby access. Both planners, Mr. Arbelaez and Mr. Williams, testified that it would be helpful in the course of the work of a planner to have a more specific definition. Response: This recommendation is prospective only. The Administration has no objection to such an amendment. A discussion regarding apartment hotels is currently pending before the Land Use and Sustainability Committee (LUSC). As part of that discussion, the Administration will be providing specific recommendations on potential amendments to the LORs. 6. The City should amend Section 142-696 of the City's Land Development Regulations to provide for maximum allowable density in the R-PS2 zoning district (See Legal Opinion). Response: This recommendation is prospective only. The Administration has no objection to such an amendment and will be proposing this for all zoning districts as part of the ongoing LOR update. 7. The City's Building Code extension process should be brought into compliance with the Florida Building Code, which allows extensions for a period of 90 days, not 180, as is the current practice in the City. This was acknowledged by the Building Official during her statement. Response: This recommendation is prospective only. All building permits are issued for 180 days. On March 9th , 2020, the Governor declared the first COVID state of emergency, which by law stops the clock on all building permits. On this date, the subject permit had been issued for 84 days, leaving a total of 96 days from the original 180 days from the issuance of the Permit. Once the COVID state of emergency was lifted on June 26th, 2021, the permit holder needed to either request and pass a site inspection prior to September 30, 2021 or invoke the additional 6 months as allowed per FS 252.363, which allows for permits tolled for the duration of the state of emergency declaration to be extended an additional six months. A permit inspection was scheduled and passed on August 12th, 2021, which was prior to September 30, 2021 . This action added 6 months to the permit, as allowed by Florida Building Code Section 105.4. Consequently, the subject permit has never expired. It is important to note the distinction in the Florida Building Code (FBC) between permit applications and permits. The permit application is not relevant to the discussion of 310 Meridian Avenue. That said, the permit application extension process was modified to a 90-day extension in keeping with FBC stricter rules for permit applications, but not for permit extensions. An exact period for a permit extension is not stated in the FBC, as it pertains to conditions of permit. Under FBC 105.4, the timeline for permits is 180 days. Accordingly, the Building Official has concluded, after consultation with the Florida Building Commission and the County Boards of Rules and Appeals, that it is standard practice to allow for 6-month (180-day) extensions. After contacting the Florida Building Commission and speaking with the representative, the Building Official was informed that pursuant to FBC 109.3, the Building Official has the authority to determine permit extensions. Additionally, after conferring with the professional staff of BORA, the Building Official was informed on matters of permit tolling and extensions, they have opined that the statutory language as it is written (F.S. 252.363) would apply, and must be followed closely by both the permit holder and the Building Official, due to the prescribed timeframes. Additionally, the staff to BORA opined that extending all active permits for 180 days, one time due to COVID, allowed the applicable relief. The Miami-Dade County Code explicitly requires all Building Officials to interpret the Florida Building Code, and Section 8-4 of the County Code provides a remedy if a party disagrees with the Building Official. If there is a question as to the ruling of a Building Official and the interpretation of the Florida Building Code, the interested party can seek a ruling from the Miami- Dade County Board of Rules and Appeals (BORA). It is unlawful for any persons to interfere in the Building Officials performance of her duties under FS468.604.