Laserfiche WebLink
M M <br />Planning Director Stan Boling explained that the Disney <br />application is.in and is being processed and is scheduled for the <br />Thursday, August 12, 1993, meeting of the Planning & Zoning <br />Commission. At this point, the Sea Oaks developers have not <br />formally applied. They have gone through their pre -application <br />conference, which is prior to the formal application, so they have <br />not done anything that the County would have to consider for <br />approval. <br />Deputy County Attorney Will Collins advised that Disney would <br />not be affected because they have already applied and are at the <br />hearing stage. <br />Commissioner Macht asked whether the fact that Sea Oaks has <br />given notice that they intend to file an application is sufficient. <br />Attorney Collins explained that the pending ordinance doctrine <br />is a creation of case law, and the cases seem to say that when a <br />land owner has not applied or done any construction and has <br />knowledge of the impending change, he should be on notice that if <br />he goes forward any expenses incurred are at risk of this pending <br />change. Typically, pending ordinance doctrine would apply only to <br />projects that have not yet filed an application. Anyone whose <br />application was in process would have the benefit of existing laws <br />and not have retroactive application. <br />Discussion ensued, and Director Boling advised that applicants <br />for special exception uses are required to confer with staff from <br />the Planning & Development Division prior to filing an application <br />to informally discuss the requirements of the special exception <br />section and the nature of the proposal. <br />Attorney Collins indicated that the cases on the pending <br />ordinance doctrine vary on whether refusal to go forward under the <br />old rules is allowed depending on time and expenditures the person <br />has made and changes of position that have been made in reliance on <br />the old ordinances. He felt it was arguable whether Sea Oaks, <br />having not applied, has made any substantial change in position and <br />is being treated unfairly. However, they may argue that they have <br />expended substantial monies. <br />Commissioner Macht's opinion was that the only thing this <br />action will affect is the right of application, and that it would <br />not affect the approvability of any plan they submit, which would <br />still be subject to whatever LDRs prevail. At any rate, he felt <br />the pending ordinance doctrine should be invoked to avoid the rush <br />to the Courthouse doors. <br />Chairman Bird clarified that the effect of the Motion will be <br />a moratorium that the County could not accept any new applications <br />39 <br />AUG 10 1993U 90 faF17 <br />