6/3/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUN 3,1981 TO: Patrick Chairman Board of B. Lyons, DATE: -June 2, 1981 County Commissioners m6K 46 PAGE 614 FILE: SUBJECT: North Beach Residential Densities FROM: George G. Collins, Jr., REFERENCES: County Attorney In view of the controversy surrounding the question of residential densities on the North Beach area of the Barrier Island,.I would like to take this opportunity to review the options available to the Board and to consider the possible ramifications of those choices. Data regarding pending applications for site plan approval.on the North Beach contained in the memorandum dated May 27, 1981, by Dave Rever should be considered supplemental to .this discussion. The Board -has two alternatives available: 1) To initiate another interim rezoning of the North Beach area, or 2) To deal with the question of North Beach densities through adoption of the land use element of the comprehensive plan. Because of the scope of the proposed development and the equally sizable opposition it seems inevitable that: aggrieved parties on one side or the other will institute litigation. Because both the land use element of the comprehensive plan and a Board initiated rezoning will be subject to essentially the same.challenges, we will review in general terms the possible bases for claims against the County and attempt to point out any advantage attached to the respective alternatives. Basic land use decisions rendered under either a rezoning or the land use element of comprehensive plan will be subject to the same standard, i.e., is the rezoning or density decision reasonable in view of avail- able facts. The substantive basis for equitable claims against the County will be constitutional issues relating to due process, equal protection and taking of private property without just compensation. An additional basis for this type of claim will be to allege that cer- tain rights have been vested and, therefore, that the County is unable to enforce any subsequently enacted zoning to the property in question which is more restrictive than that which was previously in effect. Coupled with the claim for equitable relief will undoubtedly be claims for monetary damages basod upon 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. This is an alleged violation of civil rights based upon the same constitutional grounds stated above, the only difference being that monetary damages are the relief requested. As in the Treasure Coast Utilities litigation, it is likely that the individual members of the Board as well as the County will be joined as defendants in an action of this nature. In addition, both alternatives will be subject to any procedural claims that may be available. Potential vesting claims are the major concern at the present time and difficult to assess. This concept applies where an -individual, in good faith, relies upon an affirmative act or omission of a governmental body and makes a substantial change in position or incurs obligations and expenses based on that act. When vested rights are found, the de- cision is based upon the belief it would be highly unjust to destroy the rights upon which the individual already has relied to his detriment. The outcome is based strictly upon a factual analysis. r