‘A nuclear option’: Miami residents sound the alarm over proposed zoning code change

The city of Miami is proposing to scale back the requirements for installing recreational facilities like golf courses, basketball courts and small sports complexes in city parks — a policy change that residents have called a “nuclear option” created for the purpose of allowing controversial gym equipment linked to Commissioner Joe Carollo to remain in a popular downtown park.

Generally speaking, the change applies to city parks. It would amend the zoning code to allow the city to build recreational facilities “by right,” meaning the city wouldn’t need to obtain a certain type of permit — called a warrant — for those uses. If approved, the city would no longer be required to notify abutting neighbors and registered HOA groups of certain changes, like the installation of a new pickleball court, for example, and it would strip residents of the ability to challenge new additions to parks through an appeal of the warrant.

City staff have argued that the policy is considered best practice among large cities in Florida, streamlining a bureaucratic process that could otherwise bog down simple park improvements. And as it stands now, Miami residents rarely challenge warrants, according to Sevanne Steiner, assistant director of the city’s planning department. While speaking to the city’s Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board last month, Steiner said less than 1% of warrants are appealed.

Still, the planning and zoning board remained skeptical of whether the benefits outweighed the costs. In fact, board members found the city’s proposal to be so unpalatable that they voted it down 10-0 at their Oct. 30 meeting.

“This particular legislation is just such an enormous hammer,” board member Adam Gersten said at the meeting, adding: “It’s almost like legislation in search of a problem.”

Laura Okamura was one of more than two dozen residents who spoke against the proposal at that meeting. She called it “ill-advised, procedurally flawed bad policy” that should be “summarily rejected.”

“This is an abuse of power to steal citizens’ rights to have any input into how their community is developed,” Okamura said.

Reached for comment Tuesday, Carollo dismissed the concerns, calling those residents a vocal minority.

“You had a couple dozen people that were upset about it out of a city of close to half a million,” Carollo said.

Despite being a unanimous rebuke of the policy, the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board’s vote is merely a non-binding recommendation. The legislation is now slated to go before the City Commission on Thursday for a final vote.

‘Obsessed with commercializing our parks’

While the proposed legislation would alter the city’s zoning code as a whole, the change emerged in response to the controversy surrounding one particular amenity: a small outdoor gym in Maurice Ferré Park. The gym equipment was installed last year at the behest of the Bayfront Park Management Trust, a city agency chaired by Carollo.

Last fall, around the time the gym equipment construction began, a downtown resident filed an appeal to challenge its installation — the type of recourse that would be eliminated under the city’s new proposal.

The Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board last November found that the gym did not comply with proper permitting and design procedures and reversed the city planning department’s approval of the gym.

Months later, in May, Carollo asked the City Commission to send the question to voters via a ballot referendum in the summer. He made his request as a “pocket item,” meaning it was not included in the publicly available meeting agenda before the meeting began. It also happened at a meeting where Commissioner Damian Pardo — who represents the downtown area where residents were challenging the gym equipment — was absent.

Carollo said he brought the proposal forward on “an emergency basis” to ensure there was enough time to get it on the August ballot.

Days before the Aug. 20 primary election, a group of residents sued the city, arguing that the question — which asked voters if the city should keep the already-installed gym equipment “to enhance recreational facilities and promote community health and fitness for all our residents” — was misleading. Their lawsuit is still pending in Miami-Dade Circuit Court.

The question, which remained on the ballot, passed with 79% voter approval. Voter turnout for that election in Miami was about 18%, according to the Elections Department.

City Attorney George Wysong acknowledged at a City Commission meeting last month that the proposed zoning code change provided a legal avenue for the city to remove the fencing around the gym equipment following the ballot referendum results.

A city spokesperson did not respond to a question about why the item to change the zoning code to address the gym equipment is up for a vote before the judge issues a ruling in the ballot referendum lawsuit. Earlier this month, the judge denied the city’s motion to dismiss.

Miami City Commissioner Christine King, who is sponsoring the item on the zoning change, agreed with Wysong.

“The item is intended to honor the wishes of our electorate who gave the Commission a mandate by an 80% vote to keep the gym equipment in Maurice Ferre Park,” she said in a statement.

Asked about the fact that the planning and zoning board voted the proposal down 10-0, King said her priority was ensuring the city doesn’t disenfranchise voters. “Their vote was a mandate to the City Commission,” she said.

Asked whether he thinks the city zoning code should be changed to accommodate a singular outdoor gym, Carollo told the Herald that the proposal was the City Attorney’s Office’s idea — not his. “I didn’t come up with any of that,” he said.

Speaking to the planning and zoning board, Marc Burton, an attorney representing the residents suing the city, said that if the zoning code change is approved, “the ramifications will be severe.” He likened the gym equipment issue in Maurice Ferré Park to an “ant hill.”

“It’s confined to that one space in that one park,” Burton said. “The solution that the city has is to blow it up with an atomic bomb.”

Downtown resident Brian Kern told planning and zoning board members at the Oct. 30 meeting that the city was essentially asking the board to render its own rules “irrelevant.”

“It’s like asking the turkey to vote on the menu for Thanksgiving dinner,” Kern said.

Brian Burlingame said downtown residents are left asking themselves “why our politicians are so obsessed with commercializing our parks. Who benefits? Certainly not the downtown residents.”

Steven Smith, one of the residents suing the city over the ballot question, said: “This is really about a politician being told no.”

At an earlier meeting in October, Smith said the city’s proposal was “a nuclear option.”

“This never was about the gym. Never,” Smith said. “This was about citizens having a voice.”

This story has been updated to accurately reflect the timeline for the installation of gym equipment and the resident appeal.

This story was originally published November 20, 2024 at 5:50 PM.