|
BCOK 9 FAIIJE S6
<br />This excerpt supports our position when it states that the Commission is to review the site
<br />plan "in accord with the City zoning law'". In our case, the Commission will review it in accord
<br />with the LDRs, which includes all zoning requirements, i.e. the limitation of the use to a grocery
<br />store and the definition of the CL district, as well as other factors referenced above.
<br />2. "...a city cannot unreasonable withhold approval (of a site plan) once the
<br />legislatively adopted legal requirements have been met." (City of Delray Beach).
<br />This excerpt notes that the prerequisite for the landowner/developer is meeting
<br />"legislatively adopted legal requirements." These would include the zoning classification (use)
<br />and definition of the CL district as well as other factors previously noted. According to this
<br />excerpt, it is only "once" these requirements have been met that the Board's discretion comes into
<br />play. Even then, this excerpt implicitly recognizes that ("quasi-judicial" or not) the Board retains
<br />some degree of discretion, saying " a city cannot unreasonably withhold approval of a site plan
<br />(emphasis supplied). Removing the double negative, this excerpt says the Board, "once the
<br />landowner meets the "legislatively adopted legal requirements" (assuming that can be done; a
<br />point we do not concede here), can still reasonably withhold approval of a site plan.
<br />3. "All persons similarly situated should be able to obtain plat approval upon
<br />meeting uniform standards. Otherwise the official approval of a plat application
<br />would depend upon the whim or caprice of the public body involved." (City of
<br />Delray Beach)
<br />The above quote talks about "plat approval," and a site plan is not a plat. Plats are simply
<br />maps "showing the location and boundaries of individual parcels of land subdivided into lots, with
<br />streets, alleys, easements, etc., usually drawn to scale," HENRY CAMPBELL BLACK, BLACK'S
<br />LAW DICTIONARY at p. 1036 (5th ed. 1979) (emphasis supplied), while a site plan shows the
<br />layout of a particular lot - i.e., building, driveway "cuts", parking, drainage, etc., location.
<br />Case law recognizes the distinction between platting and obtaining site plan approval, too.
<br />The two cannot be equated, since "even with an accepted subdivision plat, (a landowner can) ...
<br />not begin development except in accordance with an approved site plan." City of Gainesville v.
<br />Republic Inv. Corp., 480 So. 2d 1344, 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (bracketed matter supplied).
<br />Additionally, site plan approval is a local matter, determined only according to city or
<br />county ordinances, see, id. (citing Gainesville Zoning Code), whereas platting must be
<br />accomplished in accordance with statewide statutory requisites, found in Chapter 177, Part I,
<br />Florida Statutes (1993).
<br />I.submit that in the instant case, Excerpt #3 will be unnecessarily confusing to the Board
<br />members, since there is no issue of plat approval before the Board.
<br />4. "The administrative procedure for site plan approval is quasi-judicial in nature,
<br />and conducted to factually determine if a proposed site plan submitted by the
<br />property owner conforms to the specific requirements set out in the administrative
<br />regulations governing the erection of improvements on the property . .. Those
<br />conditions should be set out in clearly stated regulations. Compliance with those
<br />regulations should be capable of objective determination in an administrative
<br />proceeding. While the burden may be on -the property owner to demonstrate
<br />compliance, no legislative discretion is involved in resolving the issue of
<br />compliance." (City of Delray Beach).
<br />This excerpt goes back to the first and second excerpts, which it parallels in some
<br />respects. Excerpt #4 is directed to the Board's action after the landowner has shown that "the
<br />legislatively adopted legal requirements have been met," as required by Excerpt #2. Thus, this
<br />Excerpt #4 is only relevant if the Board determines that a "grocery store" is a "supermarket" and
<br />determines that the proposed use meets the definition of the CL district and meets the other,
<br />requirements listed above.
<br />95
<br />July 12, 1994
<br />
|