1/27/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Attorney Brandenburg commented that one of the points he found to be significant in the Commission's wording when they opened the door for other people to bring appeals was that they did not go with the language that many of the court decisions refer to and that is "an aggrieved party;" instead they specifically said that "any other person having any aggrieved interest therein" may file an appeal. He then went on to note that when you review a zoning decision in Circuit Court, you go up for what is called a petition for a writ of certiorari, which means you are limited strictly to reviewing what has happened before, and the court does not receive any other evidence. Mr. Henderson is suggesting that is the way the Board should review. the Planning & Zoning Commission decision, and Attorney Brandenburg did not agree. He pointed out that when the Board adopted their. Code, they included criteria that when an appeal is heard, they would hear from all interested parties. Commissioner Lyons noted that the Audubon Society has made certain allegations that they were denied the opportunity to present their evidence at the Zoning Board hearing and since the Minutes seem to demonstrate that fact, what more is needed. Attorney Brandenburg believed that Florida Land Company should indicate what their position is. He noted that although Attorney Henderson has presented some legal arguments, he has not addressed the substance of the appeal. Attorney Henderson felt that it would not be appropriate for Florida Land to go into this before the Commission makes a ruling as to whether the Audubon Society has standing to question the validity of the action taken because of some procedural defects or the substance of the action. Attorney Brandenburg referred to the letter from the Audubon Society citing reasons for the appeal. He informed JAN 2 71982 47 BOOK .48 PAGE (J3