7/12/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

II 10. 'Me correct law applicable in this case is that the ordinance should be given its plain meaning and that any doubts should be construed in favor of a property owner. The circuit court's reliance upon the undefined and uncertain standards contained in the statement of intent when clear and specific numbers of units are expressed in that same ordinance is not an interpretation that recognizes the plain meaning of the ordinance." (City of Deerfield Beach) This excerpt is misleading and out of context. The quote says simply that if a specific numeric density is stated in the ordinance, an undefined term ("low-density") elsewhere in the ordinance cannot be used to deny a site plan due to its density. This is not an issue in the instant case. This excerpt was cited in the Deland case referenced above and was distinguished by the Life Concepts case cited in Deland. The standards and requirements for site plan review are clearly written in the LDR and those are the standards that the proposed site plan must meet. The above excerpt is from a 1982 case. Since then local governments, such as Indian River County have spent a great deal of time and money formulating their LDRs to be as clearly written as possible. 11. 'The site plan merely regulates the layout of a piece of property, the design of the buildings, and the actual locations of the buildings on that site. The city's zoning ordinance controls the uses to which a particular piece of property may be put. The plan board, therefore, is not to be concerned with the particular use of a piece of property as long as it fits within the permitted uses of the city's zoning ordinances." (City of Gainesville) 12. 'The plan board members voted to deny the petition because of the parcel's intended use ... not because it failed to comply with appropriate criteria for site plan approval." (City of Gainesville) [This was found to be illegal.] The quotes in Excerpts #11 and 12 above pertain to a situation where the city enacted a building moratorium while the site plan approval was underway. As I previously noted in the discussion of Excerpts #6 and #7, if no outright 'building moratorium" is imposed on this site, I fail to see the relevance of these case excerpts to the instant case. My clients have never advocated the position that no development should be permitted on this site. All we have ever requested is that the applicant be required to comply with the LDRs and limit the size of the commercial use to what is allowed in the CL districts to provide "restricted commercial activities" to serve the needs of "area residents". 13: 'The test in reviewing a challenge to a zoning action on grounds that a proposed project is inconsistent with the comprehensive land use plan is whether the zoning authority's determination that a proposed development conforms to each element and the objectives of the land use plan is supported by competent and substantial evidence. The traditional and non -deferential standard of strict judicial scrutiny applies. (Machado case) 14. "A development order or land development regulation shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, and other aspects of development permitted by such order or regulation are compatible with and further the objectives, policies, land uses and densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan, and if it meets all other criteria enumerated by the local government." (Machado case) I generally have no problem with the above excerpts, we have and will continue to present competent and substantial evidence through expert witnesses and documents to support our position that the proposed Sea Mist Shoppes site plan does not meet all applicable standards and requirements of the LDRs. The last sentence of Excerpt #13 goes to judicial review of whatever decision the Board makes, rather than what the Board may do. It probably should be eliminated, so not to add more confusion to the issue. 98 bo 92 wOU- July 12, 1994