My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/12/1994
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1994
>
7/12/1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:04:25 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 2:33:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/12/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
125
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
10. "The correct law applicable in this case is that the ordinance <br />should be given its plain meaning and that any doubts should be <br />construed in favor of a property owner. The circuit court's <br />reliance upon the undefined and uncertain standards contained in <br />the statement of intent when clear and specific numbers of units <br />are expressed in that same ordinance is not an interpretation that <br />recognizes the plain meaning of the ordinance." (City of Deerfield <br />Beach) <br />11. "The site plan merely regulates the layout of a piece of property, <br />the design of the buildings, and the actual locations of the <br />buildings on that site. The city's zoning ordinance control the <br />uses to which a particular piece of property may be put. The plan <br />board, therefore, is not to be concerned with the particular use of <br />a piece of property as long as it fits within the permitted uses of <br />the city's zoning ordinances." (City of Gainesville) <br />12. "The plan board members voted to deny the petition because of the <br />parcel's intended use . . . not because it failed to comply with <br />appropriate criteria for site plan approval." (City of Gainesville) <br />(This was found to be illegal.) <br />13. "The test in reviewing a challenge to a zoning action on grounds <br />that a proposed project is inconsistent with the comprehensive land <br />use plan is whether the zoning authority's determination that a <br />proposed development conforms to each element and the objectives of <br />the land use plan is supported by competent and substantial <br />evidence. The traditional and non -deferential standard of strict <br />judicial scrutiny applies. (Machado case) <br />14. "A development order or land development regulation shall be <br />consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities <br />or intensities, and other aspects of development permitted by such <br />order or regulation are compatible with and further the objectives, <br />policies, land uses and densities or intensities in the <br />comprehensive plan, and if it meets all other criteria enumerated <br />by the local government." (Machado case) <br />15. "Zoning laws are in derogation of the common law and as a general <br />rule are subject to strict construction in favor of the right of a <br />property owner to the unrestPicted use of his property. Permitted <br />uses must be interpreted broadly, prohibited uses strictly so that <br />doubts are resolved in a property owner's favor." (City of South <br />Miami) <br />Attorney Vitunac explained that the Board is acting as a <br />quasi-judicial body today, which is a very important distinction. <br />Legislative means that the Board would sit up here and decide what <br />the definition should be for the future, and adopt an ordinance to <br />that effect. Arguments can be made at a later time to change the <br />Zoning Code in the future, but today the Board is not sitting as a <br />legislative body, even though their determination today will affect <br />the definition of all grocery stores in the county in the CL zone. <br />19 <br />July 12, 1994 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.