My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/23/1996
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1996
>
4/23/1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:05:49 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 3:26:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/23/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
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
Boa 97 ps.U906 <br />I received one telephone complaint from an individual who wished to <br />rent a single-family home in the City of Vero Beach but was refused <br />by the real estate broker citing to city ordinances which prevent <br />three or more unrelated individuals from living together in a <br />single-family zoning district. <br />This complaint led to dialogue, correspondence, and research with <br />the City Attorney's Office. Our research determined that the <br />county ordinance adopted at the DCA's request was broader than the <br />federal Fair Housing Act or the Florida Fair Housing Act. <br />While the state and federal act prohibit discrimination in housing <br />based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial <br />status, and handicap, the local ordinance also includes as <br />protected classes those discriminated against based on ancestry, <br />marital status, and age. (You may recall during the adoption <br />hearing concerns were expressed regarding the application of this <br />ordinance to housing for the elderly. As a result code section <br />309.04.(3)h). exempts from operation of the act any person who <br />wishes to restrict sales, rentals, leases, or occupancies to <br />persons over age 55, to the extent allowed by state or federal <br />law.) <br />The term "ancestry" seems redundant of "national origin." <br />The only court case located which discusses "marital status" was <br />County of Dane v. Norman, a Wisconsin Supreme Court case decided in <br />1993, which held that unrelated individuals living together was a <br />"conduct" not "status"; i.e., the court said marital status was <br />single or married. The county ordinance did not preclude either <br />singles or marrieds from living in a single-family house. It <br />proscribed the conduct of unrelated individuals living together. <br />Recommendation: Amend Chapter 309, Fair Housing, to delete <br />"ancestry, marital status, and age" as protected classes under the <br />ordinance. The current ordinance over -reaches state and federal <br />fair housing acts and potentially could cause unnecessary disputes <br />with other local governments within the county. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously <br />authorized advertising of a public hearing to amend <br />Chapter 309, Fair Housing, to delete "ancestry, <br />marital status, and age" as protected classes under <br />the ordinance, as recommended in the memorandum. <br />INDIAN RIVER LAGOON NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM <br />The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 17, 1996: <br />To: Board of County Commissioners <br />From: Fran B. Adams, Chairman <br />Date: April 17, 1996 <br />Re: Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program <br />The Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program winds down as <br />we have completed the COMP. The future of the IRLNEP involves <br />52 <br />April 23, 1996 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.