Laserfiche WebLink
COMMISSIONER I"iODTKE STATED THAT THEY WILL PROBABLY BE <br />DEALING WITH DUNE LINES — RESTORATION — POSSIBLE FUNDING — THE CORPS <br />PROGRAM, ETC., AND CONTINUED THAT IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC AREAS WHERE <br />THE BOARD WISHED THE COMMITTEE TO FUNCTION, THEY SHOULD SO DIRECT THE <br />COMMITTEE SO THEY DID NOT GO OFF ON TANGENTS WHICH THE BOARD DID NOT <br />DESIRE. <br />COMMISSIONER LYONS DISCUSSED WITH THE BOARD THE FOLLOWING <br />LETTER WRITTEN BY HIM AS CHAIRMAN OF THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING <br />COUNCIL RELATING TO THE "ESTUARIES" CASE. <br />tre <br />afl are <br />9 _ <br />St. l�� .Cowl <br />s7"x, regio <br />. . . . . .3 T . <br />0 <br />IOWAplannin� <br />�� - � ani •.,, ti�.^i•� in <br />council r . ty "vion7 <br />.\ ��� r <br />y March 13, 1980 o� <br />�. '�"• ���'J'C�u �� Alt <br />in <br />�1' P. i /lf �i/• rti.: <br />r y . <br />The Honorable Willard W. Siebert, Jr. <br />Indian River County Commission Chairman <br />2145 14th Avenue <br />Vero Beach, FL 32960 <br />Dear Commissioner Siebert: <br />Recently, an important case involving local government's authority <br />to regulate land use was decided by the First District Court of . <br />Appeal in Tallahassee, Estuary Properties, Inc. v. Honorable Reubin <br />O'D. Askew, So. 2nd (December 17, 1979, Case No. II -419. This case <br />involved a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) appeal in which Lee <br />County entered a Development Order denying permission to develop a <br />large residential community (26,500 dwelling units), which was <br />reversed by the First District Court of Appeal. <br />The purpose of my letter is to make you aware of this decision and <br />to outline our view of its possible implications for local governments. <br />Y,. I am also suggesting a way in which your local government may be able <br />to have input into the final decision of this case which is now pending <br />before the Florida Supreme Court (Case No. 58,485). <br />As you are probably aware, ordinarily in litigation regarding the <br />validity of local government land use regulations, the local government <br />land use regulations are presumed to be valid. Anyone seeking a change <br />in or objecting to such regulations has the obligation to demonstrate <br />by sufficient proof that there are reasons for invalidation. Your <br />local government attorney will, I believe, confirm the importance_ of <br />this presumption in Defending your land use regulations. <br />The Court, in Estuary Properties, Inc., essentially reverses this <br />situation and places the burden of proof (local government, in this <br />case) on Lee County and the other governmental agepcies involved. <br />In Estuary Properties, Inc., one of the primary issues was whether <br />the development would result in a degradation of water quality in <br />nearby Estero and San CarlosF3ays. As part cr the developmerit''1- <br />the developer proposed the removal of an 1,80 acre ma ve t85 <br />MAR 19 1980 J <br />