Applicant asks Tampa council to reconsider comprehensive-plan vote, legal advisers say waiver required

Scott McLaren, attorney for the Magnolia Court Hotel applicant, asked Tampa City Council to reconsider the panel’s earlier vote on a comprehensive-plan map amendment, arguing that the state Live Local Act applies to the property and should have been considered in the original decision. “Live Local applies to the property. It’s the law,” McLaren told council during the public-request-for-reconsideration period.

City attorneys advised council that rule 3(b)(12) of the council’s procedures generally treats requests by members of the public for reconsideration of comprehensive-plan amendments as not subject to reconsideration unless the council waives its rules by a supermajority. City council attorney Martin Shelby told members that the provision identifies the “public” as everyone other than council members and that council retains the authority to waive its rules: “If you want to get to whether or not to reconsider, you need five votes,” Shelby said.

Council debated whether an applicant should be treated differently from a member of the public because private property interests can attach to landowners. McLaren said the applicant would not attempt full rehearing but wanted to supplement the record with “Live Local information” and other documentation. Shelby and other city attorneys said the timing and the rules are the threshold question, not the merits of Live Local.

Councilman Luis Viera moved to waive the relevant rule to permit reconsideration; the roll call produced four votes in favor and three opposed—short of the five needed—so the motion failed. The clerk recorded that Hartet, Carlson and Maniscalco voted no; Miranda, Viera and Clendenin voted yes; Young and other attendance were noted for the record. With the waiver rejected, council left its original action in place pending any motion by a council member who had voted on the prevailing side.

What happens next: the council’s rules mean a council member who voted on the prevailing side could instead move to reconsider at a subsequent eligible meeting; alternatively, the applicant may pursue any available legal remedies.