City Measures Often Approved with Undisclosed Changes

In what could be a violation of state law, Miami city commissioners often vote on legislation that deviates – sometimes greatly — from versions shared with the public

Zoning changes and other laws sent to the Miami City Commission for approval are routinely altered – sometimes with far-reaching impact — from the versions made available for public review.

At last week’s city commission meeting alone, the Spotlight has learned, four zoning code changes contained language not previously disclosed prior to the second — and final — vote to win their approval. 

While all four measures passed, the city has yet to publicly release their final versions.

The city’s use of so-called “substitution ordinances” – 11^th-hour changes of pending municipal legislation – came to light earlier this week with reports of undisclosed alterations to a controversial new law that would supersize development in areas around Metrorail stations and other fixed-rail lines.

The changes – which commissioners approved unanimously — greatly expand the inventory of eligible properties, creates a pathway for developers to sidestep minimum lot-size requirements, and allows developers to modify the plans of large scale projects without public notice or input, as long-standing rules had required.

Miami District 2 Commissioner Damian Pardo, a key backer of the legislation, and who made the motion to approve the measure, declined though a spokesperson to answer questions about the undisclosed revisions. 

But in a recent interview, veteran City of Miami Planning Director David Snow said the city’s practice of modifying pending legislation outside of public view has picked up steam in the past two years – a response to what is often a steady flow of last-minute tweaks to reflect input from residents, commissioners, city staff and others.

For example, Snow points out, the request to increase the area around transit hubs that would be eligible for upzoning benefits came — only days prior to the commission vote — from Assistant City Attorney Amber Ketterer. (Ketterer did not respond to Spotlight’s request for comment). 

In earlier days, Snow explained, such changes were made prior to publication of a final  draft – via newspapers or online – of all pending legislation. Such legally mandated “public notice” requirements allow residents and others impacted by an ordinance to voice their support, or opposition, to the new law. 

But now, the final draft — publicly posted, per state law, at least ten days prior to commission vote — is often continually reworked. Snow says city staff will alter the language up to one day prior to the final vote, when commissioners are presented with the actual legislation. If approved, the official version is not available for public review until days later when it is posted on the city’s website.

Such practices appear to be at odds with state laws that prohibit municipalities from significantly altering pending legislation without public notice. Over the years Florida courts have routinely sided with residents and citizen groups who have challenged municipal actions – including zoning code changes – for failure to comply with public notice requirements.

A legal opinion posted by the Florida Attorney General’s Office stipulates that those requirements apply “if any substantial or material changes or amendments are made during the adoption process.”

Snow argues that the City of Miami’s substitution ordinances, that he can recall, don’t reach the threshold of “substantial or material change.” They’re “just legal clean up,” as he calls it. 

But courts have ruled that anything that changes the scope of a law – such as increased density or building height, categories and locations of eligible properties, or development incentives that impact surrounding properties – are grounds for sending an ordinance back to the starting line for review, public notice, and two separate commission votes, as the state mandates.

In the case of last week’s much-altered transit-oriented development ordinance, Snow claims the city was not required to re-notice the final draft of the legislation – advising residents of even substantial modifications – because the changes reflect concepts “originally contemplated” by his planning team during the early drafting stage of the ordinance. 

For instance, warehouses, light manufacturing facilities and other properties within Miami’s “workplace” or D1 zoning category were added to the draft at the last moment, without public notice, because staff had always intended to include them, Snow insists, but inadvertently left them out.

Snow used similar logic to defend the substitution ordinance in 2023 that opened up, rather notoriously, large sections of Coconut Grove to provisions for increased building height and density, which led to city approval of an eight-story building in Center Grove – three stories higher than typically allowed.

The language excluding Coconut Grove was, itself, an amendment added in response to resident input, Snow said. Thus, the closed-door, 11^th-hour directive from then-Miami District 2 Commissioner Sabina Covo to peel away some of those exclusions was justified because “that’s what was initially contemplated.”

The city, Snow said, had no obligation to inform the public.