My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/24/2008 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2008
>
04/24/2008 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/5/2018 4:29:18 PM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:18:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call The Source
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/24/2008
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
4018
Subject
The Source Special Call Meeting
Jurisdictional Determination
I Am Ministries
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
7238
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attorney Vitunac discussed and argued the issues of due process and vested property <br />rights, voluntary abandonment and voluntary cessation, and gave a Circuit Court opinion which <br />was affirmed by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The case, Cook vs. the Citv of <br />Lake Worth, Florida, published in the Florida Law Weekly [1 Fl Law Weekly, Supp. 383a] <br />where the Petitioners bought a building (retail was permitted when they bought it); the zoning <br />changed underneath them but they were grandfathered; then the economy went bad and they lost <br />their retail tenants. He interjected that Lake Worth had a 6 -month cessation ordinance. Upon <br />appeal, the Court found that the doctrine of the vesting of property rights in nonconforming uses <br />is based on the reluctance of courts to apply zoning ordinances retroactively and destroying <br />existing rights. Attorney Vitunac hoped to show that New Horizons had attempted to sell this <br />property for the same use. <br />QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS <br />Vice Chairman Davis, in reference to the case law regarding the Motel in Sarasota, <br />asked whether there was a change in ownership in the process. Attorney Vitunac said, "No," <br />and explained the law on nonconforming uses, and property rights, which does not cancel <br />grandfathering status. <br />Vice Chairman Davis, referencing the subject facility, asked if was there a Notice from <br />the Health Department deeming it inhabitable or was that a choice made by the current owners. <br />Attorney Vitunac promised to address those questions when Linda Wakefield is called to <br />testify. <br />Commissioner O'Bryan, referring to the Sarasota case where Attorney Vitunac cited <br />that the interruption of service was caused by repairs, asked if after September 2004, whether <br />April 24, 2008 23 <br />Special Call Meeting (The Source) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.