7/12/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 92 PAGES l We hold that condition one (requiring an additional 10 foot buffer strip) is validly imposed as a reasonable application of section 20-153 of the Code of Ordinances " of the City of Coral Springs. Condition two (requiring entrances and exits to be labeled "Right Turn Out Only" is similarly valid based upon the legal requirement that an applicant demonstrate that there will be safe and adequate access in the area sought to be platted. Broward County v Coral Ridge Properties, Inc., 408 So -2d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The circuit court held the third condition (no construction allowed until the adjacent road was widened) invalid on the basis that the Court simply finds that to include such a condition on the plat without any indication in the record as to when or if said portion of the roadway will be four-laned could preclude the landowner from any reasonable use of owner's property indefinitely. City of Coral Springs accordingly was directed to delete condition No. 3 or provide further hearing on said issue. Condition No. 3 was in the nature of a building moratorium directed to a specific parcel of land and without meeting any of the formal requirements for such a moratorium. As such it was appropriately stricken. This case supports two of our major contentions: 1) the standards and requirements found in the LDRs for site plan review encompass more of the regulations than just "technical" requirements and 2) conditions may be imposed on a site plan approval that do more than simply implement some "technical' requirement or formalize the applicant's gratuitous agreement to do something beyond that specifically stated in the LDRs. Reasonable conditions may be placed in any site plan (that first meets all the standards and requirements contained in the LDRs) approval that can be backed up from some provisions found in the LDRs. This is especially important to us because once the developer has a site plan that can be approved, we have a list of operating conditions that we would like the Commissioners to consider. 8. "Section 14 of the Broward County Plat Act ... provides that such approval may be subject to such conditions as the governing body of the ... county commissioners ... may deem to be in the best interest of the public.' Without pursuing the validity of that provision ... we hold that ..., having met all of the legal requirements for obtaining plat approval, the county must approve [the] plat ..." (Broward County case) Again, this excerpt deals with plat approval. In addition to the previously noted distinctions (Excerpt #3) between plat approval and site plan approval, I would point out that to my knowledge, the LDRs do not include a vague "catch-all" provision based only on "the best interest of the public," which is what was decried in this excerpt. 9. "Opposition of surrounding property owners must be considered by the city ... since the statement of intent of the ... ordinance includes the desire to achieve aesthetic and compatible relationships between adjacent properties. Buf the opinions of neighbors by themselves are insufficient to support a denial of a proposed development. We agree with the city that project density is a legitimate concern ... But it is a concern that must be addressed and expressed in appropriate ordinances." (City of Deland) The gist of this excerpt is that "aesthetic and compatible relationships between adjacent properties" is RrojReLly considered in site plan review, but that "opinions of ... neighbors" alone are insufficient for a denial based on such concerns. We have shown and will show again, 1) through our professional land use planner and expert witness Robert W. Swarthout, AICP that the proposed site plan is incompatible with neighboring parcels and 2) through our appraiser Peter Armfield, MAI that this site plan will result in the devaluation of surrounding properties. Under the Deland case, the Board would be justified in denying the Sea Mist Shoppes site plan; however, under Synder and Delray Beach, the Board would probably have to tell the applicant What changes he would have to make in order for the site plan to be approved. 97 July 12, 1994