02/12/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

B ACKGROUND: tl: B ased upon the county's experience during the Last few years of processing appeals of staff and/or Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) decisions, the County Attorneys Office and the Community Development Department have concluded that the current appeal requirements as reflected in the existing land development regulations (LDRs) are inadequate . In staffs opinion, changes are needed to more closely reflect changes in case law that have evolved since the existing appeal requirements were drafted, years ago. To address this issue, Community Development and Attorney's Office staff have jointly drafted proposed changes to the existing review criteria and timeframes applicable to appeals. The proposed amendment was reviewed by the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) at its July 28 2001 meeting. At that meeting, the PSAC voted 7-0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed changes (see attachment #1). Subsequently, the proposed amendment was considered by the PZC at its December 13, 2001 meeting at a public hearing That hearing was continued to the January 24, 2002 PZC meeting to allow for continued discussion (see attachment #2). Subsequent to the December 13, 2001 meeting, staff revised the proposed amendment to include some suggestions and address some concerns expressed at the December 13'° meeting. At its January 24, 2002 meeting, the PZC considered the revised proposal and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopt the revised proposal (see attachment #3). That same ordinance amendment proposal is now to be considered by the Board, and the Board is to adopt, adopt with modification, or deny the amendment. ANALYSIS: • Need for Change The current appeals requirements were drafted and last reviewed more than 10 years ago, prior to the 1991 Jennings v. Dade County court case. The decision in that case, along with subsequent case law, has changed the "ground rules" for the way most local governmentdecisions are made regarding development applications and related requests, including appeals. The principal change involves the treatment of appeals as "quasi-judicial" matters. Such matters are now required to be reviewed in teams of how existing laws and regulations are to be properly applied to a given development application or request. Thus, quasi-judicial review of appeals must focus on deteiniining whether or not existing laws and regulations have been properly complied with by a given application/request. In contrast to quasi-judicial matters, certain types of land use decisions are "legislative" in nature. Applications and requests that pertain to establishing new policy, law, or regulations are considered legislative. Thus LDR amendments (such as the one now proposed) are legislative matters because such amendments establish rules. Likewise, applications for land use amendments, some rezonings, and planned developments are considered legislative because such items involve establishing rules that apply generally to future development of all properties. Local governments have broader discretion when considering legislative matters because such matters involve the making of rules or polices or regulations. When considering appeals, however, the county's discretion is not broad. Although appeals of decisions are now considered quasi-judicial, certain current LDR appeal requirements do not reflect the quasi-judicial nature of appeals. Simply put, some of the current review criteria applicable to appeals are too broad and must be changed to appropriately guide the county's appeals decisions. Therefore, staff is proposing changes that will focus the appeal decision on a deteimination of whether or not the subject application/request complies with the existing regulations. In addition, the proposed changes will standardize appeal timeframes for all types of application/requests. February 12, 2002 31 EI:( j 2 G 5 7 7 •