Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Appeals Special Magistrate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board approves switching floodplain appeals from volunteer variance board to paid special magistrate
Summary
The board recommended that City Council designate a special magistrate (instead of the volunteer variance review board) to hear appeals and variances under Article 6; staff said the change is intended to speed cases and provide legal expertise, and that Pinellas County uses a similar approach.
The Oldsmar Planning Board on Jan. 8 recommended that City Council amend the land development code to name a special magistrate — an appointed legal professional — to hear and decide appeals and variances under Article 6 (flood control, stormwater management and wetland protection) instead of using the volunteer Variance Review Board.
Planning staff said the proposed change is modeled on Pinellas County practice and is intended to provide a faster, legally informed process for complex floodplain appeals. Planning and Redevelopment Director Tatiana Childress told the board that "Pinellas County has put in, $300 per hour" as a typical rate for special magistrate services, and that council would need to approve any contract and associated cost.
Nut graf: The amendment would shift appeals and variances tied to floodplain administration from a volunteer board to a contracted special magistrate or small pool of qualified firms. Staff argued the magistrate approach offers more consistent, legally grounded decisions on technical questions tied to FEMA, the Florida Building Code and substantial-damage determinations; opponents on the board raised cost and frequency concerns.
Board members asked how many appeals the city expects and whether a paid magistrate would be retained on an hourly basis or under retainer. Staff said most post-storm substantial-damage evaluations are performed by Pinellas County and that only a small number of property owners are likely to pursue appeals; the city expects a limited caseload tied to the recent storms. The board discussed alternatives including designating the Board of Adjustment or volunteers; city legal counsel recommended an impartial, independent adjudicator because the city attorney’s office cannot both represent staff and adjudicate appeals.
City Attorney’s Office staff explained that the variances contemplated are exclusively those from the floodplain ordinance (for example, appeals of required building elevation based on new flood maps), not routine zoning variances such as setback or height exceptions. Randy (city attorney’s office) said the proposed magistrate would be a neutral, legally trained decision-maker suited to nuanced federal- and state-linked floodplain issues.
No members of the public spoke for or against the change and no written comments were received. After the hearing the board voted to recommend the code amendment to City Council; the roll call recorded five votes in favor and one vote against (Kirby — yes; Giannais — yes; Stock — no; Caldwell — yes; Vice Chair Harvey — yes; Chair Rainbier — yes). Staff said contract terms, qualification criteria and standard operating procedures for magistrate hearings will be brought to council as a separate resolution and contract if the ordinance is adopted.
Ending: The planning board’s recommendation sends the proposed ordinance to City Council; details about contracting, hourly rates, and procedures will be developed for the council packet.
