Loading...
Minutes 06-10-93~MIN~ES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1993 AT 5:45 P.M. PRESENT Edward Harmening, Mayor Jose Aguila, Vice Mayor David Katz, Commissioner Lynne Matson, Con~nissioner Robert Walshak, Commissioner J. ScOtt Miller, City Manager James Cherof, City Attorney Sue Kruse, City Clerk CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harmening called the meeting to order at 5:55 p.m. He announced the pur- pose of this meeting to be the reconsideration to rescind previous action by the City Commission on the variance to Jonathan's Grove Development. Vice Mayor Aguila advised that he requested this meeting because when he first reviewed this request, he became so involved in the development problems that he did not focus on the conditions which are required for a variance. Therefore, he felt a reconsideration was warranted. After the June 1st City Commission meeting, Vice Mayor Aguila rereviewed the backup which was contained in the Commission agenda packet. He read the Code under Administration of Variances, Article 16, Section I, Paragraph A, which states that a variance shall not be granted unless a written application for a variance is submitted to the City Engineer demonstrating four actions. He wondered why the Commission had not seen that application. After requesting more information, the entire Commission received a copy of a letter to Vincent Finizio from Scott Bennewitz of Gee and Jenson. This letter detailed the request. In reviewing the letter, Vice Mayor Aguila concluded that the request did not meet the criteria of the four requirements for a variance. Commissioner Walshak asked for a point of order and pointed out this meeting was only for the reconsideration of the previous action of the Commission and not for the purpose of getting into the subject matter. If the need for recon- sideration is granted, that review would take place at another Commission meeting. Vice Mayor Aguila again questioned City Manager Miller as to reasons why the Commission was not provided with all the information necessary on June 1st. City Manager Miller reported that he was unaware of the letter and explained that the packet of information provided was part of Engineering Memorandum No. 93-140. The letter Vice Mayor Aguila referred to was not part of that package. When Vice Mayor Aguila requested the letter, City Manager Miller asked for it and received a copy from the Engineering Department. Mayor Harmening advised that he was upset after the June 1st meeting when this request for a variance came before the Commission for the following two reasons: 1. The applicant's representative did not demonstrate any criteria for a variance; and 2. there was a strong conflict of interest. -1- "'* " I~NuTEs - SPECIAL CITY COHHIS$IOH MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OUNE 10, 1993 Vice Mayor Aguila requested this meeting to assure that the criteria for granting the variance is being followed properly. He did not feel that was accomplished at the last meeting and feels a reconsideration is in order. Motion Vice Mayor Aguila moved to rescind the previous Commission's decision on the variance request for Jonathan's Grove on June 1, 1993. Commissioner Matson seconded the motion. Commissioner Katz advised that he voted against granting the variance at the last meeting; however, the variance was granted and at this point, he has a problem taking that away from the applicant. He feels if the variance is not granted and the applicant loses the first four lots, it may be construed as a taking and the City may have to pay for those lots. Commissioner Walshak reported that the applicant talked with everyone on the Commission except himself. Commissioner Matson stated she did not talk to him. Commissioner Walshak questioned the applicant with regard to whether or not he spoke to the Commissioners about the variance since it was granted. Glen Nlcotra~ agent for MI Homes, stated he spoke with all Commissioners except ~issioner WalShak. Upon questioning by Commissioner Matson, Mr. Nicotra explained that he had a telephone conversation "with Commissioner Matson, but she would not discuss the variance with him. Mr. Nicotra stated that the conver- sations were to gain an understanding of a variance being granted by majority vote and then being revisited. Commissioner Walshak asked if Mr. Nicotra had discussed the reasons why the Commissioners had voted in a particular way. Mr. Nicotra stated that different discussions took place with each Commissioner as to concerns which may have led one person to feel one way or another about the variance. He stated that he did not try to sway any Commissioner to vote one way or another, nor did he attempt to extract the reasons why any Commissioner voted in a particular way. Mr. Nicotra stated he did not talk about the location of the property and he did not discuss moving anything around. He said any technical discussions were in line with a rehash of generalities. Commissioner Matson advised Mr. Nicotra that she would not discuss the subject, and further stated that she does not make up her mind on issues until she attends the meeting. Mr. Nicotra agreed that Commissioner Matson made this point very clear to him. Commissioner Walshak referred to a memo dated February 20, 1992, addressed to Mayor Weiner, the City Council, and J. Scott Miller from Attorney Cherof. {A copy of this letter is attached to the original copy of these minutes on file in the City Clerk's Office.} This letter referred to Appellate court cases con- cerning public officials' ex parte communications and due process procedural safeguards during quasi-judicial proceedings. He pointed out that according to the Appellate court, ex parte communications between Commissioners and an appli- cant with reference to a variance taints the process. -2- MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COMHISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ~UNE 10, 1993 Commissioner Walshak asked for the City Attorney's opinion on whether or not the City would have a defensible position if this variance is granted. Attorney Cherof said additional facts would be needed for such an opinion; however, although the applicant has indicated that he contacted members of the Commis- sion, his description of conversations with them may fall short of the concept of ex parte lobbying discussed in the February 20, 1992 memorandum. It was stressed that when such action takes place, the Commission action is voidable. Commissioner Walshak stated that Attorney Cherof's memorandum advises that ex parte communications are prohibited. On this basis, Commissioner Walshak said he would vote against a reconsideration. The motion carried 3-2. (Commissioners Walshak and Katz cast the dissenting votes.) Attorney Cherof advised that since the motion to rescind was approved, the application from the previous meeting is still on the table. It is undisposed and will be carried forward to the next City Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Matson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:20 p.m. Commissioner Katz seconded the motion which carried unanimously. ATTEST: cityjClerk ~f~ordi ng Secretary (One Tape) THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH ~ Mayo r Vi ce Mayor  Commissioner -3- CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH MEMORANDU~ TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Mayor Arline Weiner, Members of the City Council and J. Scott Miller, City Manager James A. Cherof, City Attorney~ Recent Appellate Court Cases Concerning Public Officials Ex Parte Communications and Due Process Procedural Safeguards During Quasi Judicial Proceedings February 20, 1992 Recently, the Florida Appellate Courts have rendered two decisions which will have an impact on the way local government's address planning and zoning matters. Special exceptions, rezoning, conditional use permits, variances, site plans as well as code enforcement and other executive or administrative matters must be reviewed consistent with the procedures set forth in the two recent cases. In the case of Jenninqs vs. Dade County, decided by the Third District Court of Appeal on December 17, 1991, the Court held that upon proof that a public officer acting in a quasi-judicial capacity receives an ex parte (private) contact, a presumption arises that the contact is deemed to be prejudicial. Furthermore, an aggrieved party will be entitled to a new and complete hearing unless the City is able to prove that the contact was not, in fact, prejudicial. In the Jennings case a property.owner applied for a variance to permit him to operate a quick oil-change business on his property which was located adjacent to the Petitioner, Mr. Jennings. The Dade County Commission upheld the Zoning Appeal Board's granting of the variance. However, six days prior to the Commissions action the property owner engaged a lobbyist to assist him in connection with the proceedings. Following the Commission vote, Jennings filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Complaint alleged that the Respondent's lobbyist communicated with some or all of the Commissioners prior to their vote, thereby denying him of his due process rights. The court in Jenninqs concluded that ex parte contact or communication between a private individual or a lobbyist on behalf of a private individual and a public officer prior to the public officer's review and rendering a decision on matters such special exceptions, rezonings, site plans, land use plan amendments which affect a particular piece of property, etc., Page 1 of 4 would now be prohibited based on the court's finding that certain standards of basic fairness must be adhered to in order to afford all parties minimal due process. In the case of Synder vs. Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, decided by the Fifth District Court of Appeals on December 12, 1991, the court held governmental action which in substance involves the review and application of a previously enacted general rule of law (i.e., a zoning ordinance) to a particular instance (i.e, a specific parcel of privately owned land) regardless of the form it is presented (i.e., petition for rezoning, special exception, conditional use, variance, site plan, land use plan amendment affecting a specific parcel, etc.) is deemed to be quasi-judicial and requires adherence to basic constitutional due process requirements. In the Sn_D_~der case the Petitioners, owners of a one-half acre of land zoned general use, desired to construct a multi-unit dwelling and petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County to rezone their land to permit the multi-unit dwellings. The zoning department's report stated that the request was consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and compatible with surrounding land uses, but appeared to be within a flood plain which limited development to two units per acre. The zoning department's report was amended prior to the Commission's vote to show that the original statement concerning the flood plain (and the restriction to two units per acre) had been refuted. However, the Commission voted to overrule the zoning board's recommendation and denied the rezoning request without giving any reasons. Following the Commission's vote, the Petitioner filed a lawsuit alleging that the zoning classification sought was consistent with the comprehensive plan and that its denial was arbitrary and unreasonable and had no substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare and was not according to the essential requirements of law. The court in Snyder held that governmental agencies "by whatever name it may be characterized" (i.e. Commission, Council, Board, Committee, etc.) applying its land use regulations must state the reasons for action that denies the owner's petition and must make findings of fact and state the reasons for the result of the of action taken as well as providing a record of its proceedings sufficient for judicial review. Further, the court in Snyder determined that although the initial burden is upon the landowner to demonstrate that his petition complies with the procedural requirements of the City's zoning ordinances and that the use sought is consistent with the City's comprehensive zoning plan, once that is shown the petition must Page 2 of 4 be granted unless the City asserts and proves by "clear and convincing evidence" that a. specifically stated public necessity requires a~specified, more restrictive use. It is important to note that the due process requirements imposed by the courts in the above-mentioned cases typically requires that the parties be provided notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard, including the ability to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses and to be informed of all the facts upon which the governmental agency intends to act. Both of the above-mentioned cases are presently on appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. However, in the interim it is advisable for public officers and governmental agencies to abide by the court rulings. In light of the ruling in these cases, it is recommended that both advisory boards, boards, committees, and councils/commissions, revise their present procedures for hearing such zoning matters as follows: Ail interested parties should be notified in writing well in advance of any hearing date of the time, place and the subject matter to be considered. Further, the parties should be advised that they will be permitted to present evidence, witnesses and to cross- examine the testimony of other witnesses. Staff reports/recommendations which seek to deny a petitioner's requested action should contain specific findings justifying the denial of the petition. In some instances this may require bringing in consultants or experts to testify in order to create a sufficient record for judicial review. Each governmental agency taking action on a petition which denies the petitioner's requested action must make findings of fact and state the reasons for the actions taken. This could be accomplished by simply having the agency adopt staff's report, the testimony of witnesses, if any, and any other evidence presented at the hearing and direct that the secretary or clerk prepare a letter to the petitioner which sets forth the above and the conclusions reached by the agency. Ail public officers should minimize any contact or communications with private individuals or lobbyists concerning specific matters which are likely to be presented to them in their official capacity for formal action. Page 3 of 4 Attached please find a copy of the Snyder case for your information. Should you have any questions concerning the cases or this memorandum, please contact me. JAC:aw [¥4E~\pubLic.doc) Attachments Page 4 of 4 16:52 ID:$0SIAS AND ~EN TEL N0:99,1~92~ ~c od.d Judgment. (D^U'KSCH, I., and WALDEN, ~--~n~--~--AP~--~~O~e~ of ~ r~fl~ ~ m~ d~h~ mulfiph.f~ly d~ll~ilc ~tnu 01 Or~ gene~l Oomprehe~Jve ~n~ng ~d pln~ ~ appl~afi~ of p~v~ly ~tcd ~nt~ ~le of ~w ~ n pnr- N~r fairly de~ble n~r any ~ ~y ~d of r~tw ~H~ ~ jud~l review ~ ~ning ~~n~0~ers ~n f~ re~n~ ~mo~ated con. · ~vi~e ~d not ~b~h mo~, or ~f~e ~ ~e fe~ publ~--~nd0,~ ~ere en~tbd to Mn~ c~i~t~n ~ugM n~ ~ ~ wi~out giv~ ~om ~p~e~ by ~ w~, m a reneer of hw, arb~ ~ ~d ~m,~ubJe ~d Ju~Jnu~ rev~wable ~d reve~ ~e ~, ud ~er ~eeat~ de~d ~do~ers' ~d~n for ~orsrl review of ~e ~nlng au~ity's ~don den~ ~dr requu~d ~nln~ C~ No. 9~1214, ~;~ ~ ~ce 12, Ot~. fl~lre [O ~t a multi.~l dw~Mg ~ their ~r l~d ~o a RU~2-15 ~ium d~ty mulfiplc.h~ly ~g cI~fication. e B~v~d ~ C?m~e~lv~ Pi~' pr~vid~ for ~mre r~i~l d~sity)~ d~ign~on~ oho~ ~ a Futurc ~d U~ E~t U~n ~ving the r~n~g ~ti~ti~fi from thc l~d~. ~ s~ef ~ Brcv~d Cowry Comp~h~ve ~i~ ~~t (~ZD) ~vi~ it ~ ~de ~n find- rags m s ~d~d Ec~lng E~Icw Wo~h~, ~ludlng ~1) ~t ~ rc~flg ~u~t ~ co~i~cnt ~th ~ Br~d ~uflry ~ ~e ~uture ~d U~ d~ig~tiofl for ~s I~d (r~ident[nl); Disralcr courts o,e .4j,p .4L ~l~ t · · "3= '~ for ~s r~n ~o,~ ~ --~n~ ~ ~k~d ~t ~u~ ~.. t ne nncm~.~ the P&~ ~ ~e p~d. , ~r or me ~ZD Bmrd ~k~ a~t the fl~ ~ain mm. m ~. ~ ~uut~ of the b~ng ~w ~t a ~r. ~d~, r~re~ntlng the P&~ s~, smt~ ~t ~c ~d~- mg ~t out ol ~c 1~ ~ ~ Phm at ~ t~ of~e ~fling ch~. At a ~ucat public h~2n~ ~re the Br~ard ~y Board ofC~lone~ ~cre ~ Pl~nin~ ~d s~ ~ ~ke ag~t the rc~in~ ~u~. cm~ ex~ ~c us~l con~s a~i franc ~ngl~f~ly, ~ the~ ~ air'dy multifa~ly ~ ~at ~ ~t ~lling ~d ~ ~g ~sldCnu did tiredly ~ M ~ ~e ~d~en ~i~ out that their l~d w~ ~30 of SR ~, whig ~ a~omobile agency ~d o~ b~fl~ were ~t~, ~t ~ ~ngle-h~l~ r~lden~ of r~d~ were ~ ~ ~e no~ of ~e ~titio~ a~c~ ? ~ ~it~[~' pro~ did ~t r~ ~gl~ri~ly ~ ~r ~ tho noflh, that ~g~ ~m ~ ~ smg~t-f~y ~ ~ ~ po~. ~ P&ZD s~ ~vic~ ~ ~fore ~e county co~n o~in~l ~?m~t ~at ~ l~d ~ ~in the pt~ ~o lot ~t r~ r~t~e~ to t~ uni~ ~r ~rc) ~d ~ Boa~ of ~nty Co~ioae~ ~rml~ ~c Pla~ag ~d ~njng ~d's r~o~endari~ and dcni~ ~t wlthoutgiving ~y r~n, ~ l~e~ fi]~ ~ the circuh cou~ n Portion f~ ~rfio~ alleging lh~ ~e ~n~g ci~ificalion laM~era ~ ~nsi~nt with the c~ty Compt~ive ~nin~ Plm ~ ~uir~ by ~ti~ 163.3194(IXa), Florida 3~u~, ~d ~at its ~n~l ~ arbit~ry ~d u~aablc ud Ead no sub~t~ ~lad~ Io ~ ~blic h~h, ~f~y. ~la or general ~Ifate ~ w~ aot a~rding to thc ~ti~ ~. ~ta of bw. ~e Countyk r~ to ~he I~d~' ~dio- ran ~tition refe~r~ only m ~e ~;ti~ns' v~ obj~t~ :o the reining ~ to ~e f~ t~t the P&ZD s~ had i,dd~l(v~om. ~6 n'w meaded'a n.~xLmum of'two unha ~.. ~.s .... ~, ~i~ ~ 1~ ~t~t~ f~ ~flion~ ~vi~. ~d. ~ ~y ~{on ~ ~ ~ hs~t ~ ~v~ ~n~ ~ ~t ~ ~1 ~fi~ of~ ~i~ ia h not ~ui~ t~k~ findin~ ~f ftt ~ ~m ~n~ For thio." ~ ~ of our ~vie~ is H~ ~ a de~fi~n ~ w~r ~ circuit ~d ~ ~e l~e~ ~u~ d~ ~ a~g ~ a ~ly lt~i~ve ~c~, a ~g~Itti~y ~ ~ ~on ~ ~t~e ~ ~ !~ ;h~d~ ~d is net ~y ~view ~em~ ~ti~ ~r ¢ompli~ ~th ~e~ ~ ~y ~ ~ ~mng ~t m ~:s ~ a leg~latiw ~ {o w~ch, ~r the ~li~i~al ~- zion of ~crs ~tHnc, the judich~ mint give a ~re~n~al s~ of ~vi~w md up~d If "r~rly ~s~bl~."* Pro~ ~e fo,&rs of ~c ~ve~t of ~e Unit~ ~t~ ~ ~ht ~ ~e f~s6mti~,n m~ ~m~ l~ds f~ m by ~e f~cn} ~e~t ~d ~e ggcuI public. ~ ~ ~{i~ !~ ~t~ ~ ~ ~ !~ of FIo~da ~d a eiti~ ~ net h~ly ~ n~nf ~t cG~ti~ a d~ ~e~m, ~~ hw ~i~ for ~e a~te~t ofpubl~ t~ ~U~ from ~.~ ~d~ of ~Md~ls. clu~f ~ ~ ~f pn~te ~, is ~i~ ~ 'VSTlUC? COURTS OF APPIN. L ?lm~. to b v~lt~ of ils ~isli.ss mi, n~n, tal, oil ~ ~ ~ ~mnm: ~~ h ~, ~e far ~er ~ or ctalty ~ 0l~t 1~0. · I~ broad ptoq:ective land is ~._e~_ in varying dC~-e.~ of inten- s~ly for lgdcuhiral, t'esidemia! ~'ld :onunerchl (business md inS~ri~~} use. A.s a ri.mit of k~ation with mlatioe te 8a~:~,vth in i~M~ati~a ~ proSuetiom there is, Ions term pmlwe~cm of need and demand Oarough these ca:egorie, of use. In t free mat- kc{ ~ itw. teat, ed need ted dcn~nd results in an increas~ or de- ugh I1~ deg,-ee~ of intenaty (or density') of use w:thin land incnmsed need sad dcn-~md for land m mow upwaM in eategoe/, an .d to mote inteMe uae in each categoO, re. suiting in pto. l~e~*we meteaa~ in the u,e value ofla.~l. .. ~e own~p 9f' p.m. pmZ i, metningtu! onb, to the extent mat me owner .nas the nRbt W. use l~r~perty in such maturer es the owMr de, Sfas. ~n · ~:iety w~ie.h rm0gni~.~ ~D. fight oft pal,ate dtir~,n to own prOperty,,r the citizen-owner has tl~ right to make .s~h u~..of prl .rarely-owned property u t~ citizen-owner ~rc~, ?.~jcCI Otly tO thc ilmJtation that privatc prv]:~'t.~ ~mmot b~..uae~ ~ aa~, ma,'m~ thet moroooh~ upon Ibc tights of mt,~r~..~.glo-A.m*ricm law r~gnize, and protm~ privat~ p.~pe, t~.? n. gh~ .and recognize, that th~ only proper iiffutation on me. right ma cmzcn lo u.~ ]mvtte property is the comm~ law of ntu._r~,, u .ri. ow embodied in the ¢on~titu6o~l ¢on=~t power. = Pohce pov,.et include, t~e t=thority of the go',,¢mment to limit t oitlz, u's use of privately-owned property ~ may be n~c~s~ry for ~0 protection of the health, n~rals mid welfa~ of' :lgen~.ml pu.Mie. The o~ly hw~ul buis for all buildin~ eod~ 3om. na Ordinance~ i~ Lbo poli~ power..,~e Villase ~2~uclid v. Ambler Realty Co.. 272 U.S. 365 47 ~ Ct I 1 d, 71 L. Ed. 303 (1926} (upl~oldi~g ¢o~stit~tionalit~' ~ ~it~ ordinance re~r~ct~l commercial development of owner's properS, on buss of police power). In sum, thc right cfa cRizen to cum property is one of t~9 most _ln~_no~ the ~ap,tahst,e form of govcmmcnt i~mrant~d by ~ta, and ftate eontt{tution,.~3 'J"ha mo~t valuaMe aa. peet of L-%e ~e ownerdfip, o_f prope~y is ~e agh~ rouse it. Any infrin&ement ers Full and free use of privately owned property, w'aeth- er Ih.e .r~utl. of E.hysi .~.I limhations o~ govemrn~tsll), reacted t~tnct~ons0 ts a direct hmiutlon on, anclain~nutioa or, ~ value of I~ p~operty and the value of its ownership and acco~m~iy trigget~ constitutional protectiom." All incidents or property owne~p ~te pt~teceed from infringcrr~nt b7 thc state tml~ gogulat;ont itt reeaonably neeesaaty to eeoure tho l'matth, L~nO as m ~nu~_ _n .~__ m Depanment o~Lom' £qf'orctment v. rroptny, 16 F.L.W. $497, ,M99 {Fla. Aug. 15, 1991). Iad~d, government ~lations which ~ith~r do not ~Jl~tlatially ~ l~itimaln state int~4'l~!~ or wllich de~y an owner ~llly vhbl~ ~ of I~ls I·nd. or t:otl~, eff~t m taking mqulrinl payment by &e gov~amoat Io tho landc'*'~ta' ofj~l 6.5 LEd. Ed.2d 106 (l~gO); Ortando/O,~n$~, Cou,~ A~hodw g W & ~ dgrigro~a~.Ferto~ield. Ltd,. $~2 So.2d 790 (Fit. ~ DCA l~l). As ~e ~lice power is also t~ bs~is for the ~u~Mri.!y o. fg.ove .n,Fn~.i to forn~_ly or informally (n~verse cow . .ef~?l~) tece pnva~e property for a public use, a govenuren* I tal urea uM. reRfiction, ahhou~h..wtth[n, the police pow,,r may. aim ~r~t~tuto m corn sa~c takm ~ $# r~; - ..... l~n g. e m .~.ngttt~ ~ 8mtn~ Lutn,rr~n Ckttr~h o~r Gl~..~d~ v. Couru'y of Z. o~ Cd/]fan,~;, 482 U.S. 3Od, 109 S. Ct. 237g, '~6' LE, d;2] 250 (1957); tee, ti.. Nollan v. enllfornit~ ¢o,~tal Oommit~,on U.S. ~2.5,107 S. Ct. 3141, 9'/L F~.2d 677 (1957L FE~-28-'92 16:54 ID:JOSIAS AND GOREN TEL N0:7'?14923 ~5~9 P~4 · btli~O$, l~Z* the I~gJlIaWV~, t~ ~tlVe.~. ~r~ A B CD B & F, 16 F.L,W, S70t fig, ~. 29, l~l) ~, ~ ~t~ of ~ d~e ts not ~ w~ wo~d air.ely ~lt ~ m~ ~t~cuon oz ~tl~, 16 P.L.W. at S7~. ~ a~o ~ v. H~. F,L.W. $716 (Fla. N~. 7, 1~1), . . ~e ~¢~ of ~ le$idativa ~ ~ ~ ~mh a~li~tt~n ~ ~i~ ~t ~. I ne ex~uuve mnc.~ cx~u~, or ~ ~+ or eff~, or ~pli~, tho legi~atlvc ~t~t by ~tit~V ~r~Mg ~ ~t~t of legiflation, ~tially d~e~Jning ~e ~ ~lat~g ~ a ~lfl~ ~nditloa or ~v~t, b)' ~fially ~lying the iegislat~ ~,~1 mi~ of la~ to pete ieafion m a pameg~ ~, qr m erin. f~ ~N~ ~ th~ ~i~ ~, the final ~te~nati~ ~ ~,~ ~ by m ~judi~tion by ~ejudiclfl ~ ofg~- e~t. ~,~ ~-~,~lv ~11~ "~aint ), cOU~ nave on~ a~n~ ~l~g r~ning of ~cular ~ls of l~d. ~ I~I ~n~g ~Ofity w~ ~y ~tioaal example, ~ Flofi~, ~ of ~e ~ I~! ~~ ~ni~g but in ap~t ~n~tmivc ~&Z} ~aras, to ex~. ~fo~ 0~- Such ~1 go~n~l ~nin~ for~t ~ w[~ o~e~t~ie ~nty to ~t ~ direly wh~ ~e I~ ~nmg ~n~y rcv~ m~ - ~o~ ~ ~~ti~s of i~ o~ employ~ ~ct~ u. dcr lciish6ve ~mhon~ ~ dtt~mn, ti f~ion.blo to d~d~ ~e act~ ~ ~lst~tlve Or ' j~xlicial."Them. .anc~ of .many.of tha~ actiem i$~ 5y a, form i. v, hich m ~ttvc ~r ot ~ ~ ~m~ ~ ~ ~jd ~ a ~hl~ act if it ~ not of~e~ ~fO~t ~r, ~p~y~ by mc gov~ by ~ul m ~ ~y ~tion ~r~y l~i ~P~l~ ofl~d ~,h;. iu p~nt ~nhg cl~ifi~fion mer~ ~ttvely ~ying t 1~ ~ ~c ~t d~ir~ to F~fi~, ~ionc~ w~ a legssla~ve Mt .~ ~tm~__ original ~ning ~in~ ~ ~ ~ing ~c ofbr~ ~c~l appli~ioa. On o~ ~i~s t~ oo~g- g~ting s~hl ex~ptions. ~nditi~al ~ ~.d site pl~ ~Mov~ls.a IV. ~o,:ing -- ~ it ~ecutive. L~isl~i~ ~ dudidat IV.(A) ~e B~ic ~ning at~ ~e~oning Conce~a c~. ~-blu~vnnt of dev~op~m. ordi~ ~e to have ~rm~ unito~ a~gli~i~ to all. It ~licv~ mat ~e 1~ g~cm~ ~Y ~d ~1~ or d~l* uriC. ~is g~ 1~ ~ ~e ~rc~ti~ ~t ~a~s ~ ~mning H~cv~, ~ ~lity most d~ol~m~t ~11~ ~ ~ch "~" ~ most ~c~p~ Of ~mm dev¢[~ment ~t govcm~nt o~clab ~e h m~i~ti~ ~ ~uf ~ "w~ of neig~ l~d f~ ind~, co~id, of int~i~ ~tA! op~t ~ .d~c of ~ a~l prowl for In ~lity, ~fo~, at ~ in.priori of ~ning ~ ~st ~ l~d ~ unOc~n~ or ~on~n~. m o~ for ~v~op~t ~ p~, ~ing. ~ion, but ~e ~le. ~o bur~n is i~a~.; w'sh~ to exctci~ h~ ~nstitutlo~! right · .a .~ Of ~d i~ not O~v flown b~t ~ g'~ Wo~ay. Fu~r"- -~re, ~ng ~s i 1~ t,~ of th~ Izlgl's suitability'tO th~ nt,,v mn{r~ ~~ly ~dc~ m ~y P~icia{ forum iF ~ ~g In~ m ~ vt~c ~ co~ l~ivc ~ ~tivm ~ the ~t{tic~ ~-~ng ~s ~no~t~ ~ a ~Gdci~ forum ~d ~ve ~y ~u{ f~ in a ~Mc~ ~cr ~d apply~{ {~l lt{{s~vm ml~ of law im~iaHy to L~ivid~ ~ h~ ~ ~d~ ~{iti~l ~d ~ d~ion to g~t ~cm ~ ~ I p~ ~1 for ~o ~s~ ~ ~ d~tdno ~i~ ~ ~u~ ~ ~id ~lve~t ~ that to ~o ~t~t the ~ ~ ~ it m~ ~ct_~ ~ j'~islative'~, ~ti~ ~y h~b!~" .... .. . _DISTRICT C'OUR:F~ OF,aPPEAL nan~e sva~ I legislative ~on ~..~ ~ ~ to ~ng o~q~, OflO of which is legislJ: r ~ wMch 5 not ~ in~l~ ~e h~ge ~ g~ ~l~ ~ ~dg appli~bility (L t., a {m~ mi of I~) to i ~ar ~el of l~d ud to ~, ~ ~lOliy ~ tppli~Mlity et a Ie{khtiv,ly~ ~ m ~mg ~ln~ce (I ~mp~cflsfv~ ~uiug Fl~) to l ~cuhr p~ of ~d, ~cw ~d, (3) w~t a~ ~ ~ pr~u~t~ for j~ci~l 0.~., ~e n~w for ~ ~Ni~h~ {~c-fo~ng. t~ ~ pr~u~, including a ~t all~ion of bu~s .la~{ to thc ~i~ of ~n,ng c~d~e, appr~ (4) t~ p~r s~dard and ~ of jud~=~ ~v~w ~d. ~ ~ng a~io~ a~ not ~bj~t to eE~tive j~icial . uo~ mc t~m ~u s~m ~nst{~tionsp~i~ ~ le$islaMm ~l not ~e pro~y ~t duc pr~ ofllw iegkMive ~6~ by ~p~ ~ ~n ~t~ to dog ofjudk~l co~tituti~a{ pro~fion.' '~ B~d judicM ~ ~gg~ting ~t ~! ~n~ leg~tgm in nam~ are out of st~ ~i~ t~ r~{ities p~c ~un nm smt~ ~t Jt co~d~ ~n~ .... - ~ ~m~ ~ ~t ~em are, ot ~o~d ~P, ~t~{ a legislative ~ or id~" ~ ...... · --pm-, ~ oeu~z~ the ac~l ~n{ ~ it p~tly ..... ~ m~e~stve. ~Mng~l~g ~ ~n~imle ~2 ,.~.m,,? ~o or ~mug l~ m a ~ific ~! of l~d ~ 19~, ~c Flcd~ ~sla~e ~et~ the ~,l ~vem- DI$~IC'I' ¢0f)~2'$ Os' APpK-~ ~j ~o~) ~ ~ ~~~ p~ (~ch ~ I n~ ofjud~ill d~ not ac~y apFU~ ~ legis- ~ ~iti~, ~e t~t~t of ~g ~isi~s u Ic~slefiv, ~ i~ to ~on ~er ~ ~is for ci~uit ~ ~v~w o~ ~g d~islo~." ~v~ ~ough weing ~lsions n~. ~ or s~ial ~t ~ ~v~.s Some d~isio, s ~y b~is for ccniorsH ~evis~.~ ~v~r, s~tion orde~ which a~ cheli~g~ ~ ~e buis ~f co~en~' wi~ ~d ~rcflenfive plm, to ~ ~bj~t m inju~tlve ~licf ~d of rsv~.~t ~ ~ hay, ~n~ ~ fairly deC,big ~r ~, but ~ a ~ ~mhing ~vi~w of the oM~ ~, ~d~lyingplms. ~er mu~ haw ~ ~y ~.C ~e [~ ~ ex~d~g ~ kttcr vi~ is thc ~ g~, ~ ~o~d of County Co~n~ ~d re~n~ ~y-~ ~ of l~d ~ single.~ly ~dential ~ ~iden~al ~h II~ ~e ~cti~ of i ~bilc ~onem ~ ~at ~ ~ione~' d~bion ~ p~- ~iv,ly ~id ~ ~t ~ b~~ had m s~ ~ ~i- At ~ ju~re ~ f~ we ~ld ~ ig~dng ~ ~ ~gidly ~ m ~ ~or~ a ~ pr~mptioa of ~i~ ~ ff~ 1~ ~ ~lm~o~ Kmdoy by ~ ~cory of ~ Fm~ coud ~vc~, ~ldlq ~c Ktion ~ j~icisl ~li~' appU~ble ~ n large ~]~ of the pabBc but ~ appian* tioa of a ~1 ~li~ m ~ific identifi~le p~i~ ~ ~a. ~c ~ ~ ~, foH~ t~t to disfiagui~j~icial from ~g~l~ve pr~es a 8ene~ ~ or poit~ which is a~iicable ~ an ~en cl~ or mdl~du~s, in~re~, or situation, or whaler ~c spplleition of a S~r~ ~1~ m ~li~y to ~ifi~ i~ividu~s, 10 lrl,W ~ by pm, ate ~n~c m~ on 1~ ~e~.'~ F~n~o ~ or ~pt~ it ~ U~t~ fo~.~ ~i~ gon, ~ mpteme c~ m ~ f~l~ngmt~ ~ve ndop~ F~e~ app~ch: W~on,~ I~o,a K~.n ~e Bist6ct of ~lumbh u~ ~ q~?judici~ ap~ch to ~mmn~ r~lt of ~idatim? ~t~ ~t have a~pt~ ~ d~ne ~ of ~n~ am vaginae,~ N~,u Ill.is. wail,~ ~o~do~ ~ Flo6~ ~um b~v, a~ appli~ ~e p~*pI~ of F~aao? cou~ cit~ m F~ ~d appU~ ~ F~aao ~ of ~ a ~g d~ision is cMIlcn~ ~ violative ef t~ A~ogousl7 wher~ a zo~cg actioa is ch~leaged u vioh~ve o~ · e comprege~tvc ~d ¢~ plag ~e buf~c~ O~ ~t~f ~$ on ~e one ~ ~e p~ dovelopmant ~on~rms s~c~y ~o ~ ~omptt* ~m'rs, 2~ Or. 574, ~ P.2d ~ (19~) {eh ~). See ~ment, ~urden of Pt~fin ~ U~ ~elulah~: A A~t~h ~d A~li~t~a to ~oddn, 8 ~. St. U.L.~v. IV.~) r~d a Fu.~;or~ Ana~tU We ~ wi~ ~e F~ano approa~ ~d co~lu~ ~at ~ ~e not Legislative in ~tur,. ~ wnt~ ~ ~g~ti>' }~t~ legis~tiw ~d judicld or q~si-judieial ~ion i~iv~s or on ~cific si~tions, ~ile le~is~ve action is oF~a~n~d, &%cd~ a ~d cl~s of ~i~d~s or ~c~ly. kSid~ve ~n r~la ~ ~a ~la~oa of ge~d mit of ~licy, whi~j~g~ ~c0on ~lu h ~e e~g~ of a $e ne rd mia of ~li~ .... ~irdly, it is l,~rflly~d ~at judici~ ~c~ ~ dvc, de~ml~nJ ltJle fl~u ~1 ~mie; of~l~ under 1~ ~ wi~ ~1~ to e~eGn8 ~ .... ~y ~n~t, five ac~ is ~d ~ ~ pr~ctiva, de~rmiuin$ '[w]hat ~e fed ~pr~& at~ ~l~ca~ion to Florida, 8 F.$.~. ~w 4~, $~ (1980). ~fial ~ng :nactmen~ ~d c~p~bemi~ r~gs ~ re~ni~s afl. dug a large ~i~ cf~e pubic lcgldatJvg ~ c~. H~ever, mmn~g ~tio~ ~ch have ~ tmp~t on a li~t~ numar of ~r~ns or pr~my ~e~, i~nti$abig pa~i~ ~d ~mt,, whom thc d~i~i~ is on a fact ~ facts i~v~ at ~m distinct mlte~tlv~ p~nt~ FEB-~8-' 92 t6:58 or judicial or~i~hl ~ ~d~ of ~ ovid~ ~uld ~ whi~ ~e ~e~ti~ ~ ~, ~o~h t~ Hi~ ~ap~ ~t~~nt. m~m o~ ~e ~e, in ~is ~, is not to ~e ~idity ~i~tionalit~ of ~e ~derly~g ~m~t~sive pl~ or to ~t ~e m~n$ ~u~t ~ ~t w~ the ~- plm ~ ~t ~ ~=~ ~ioa ~ould ~rov¢ ~ ~s~nt with a, ~fo~ ~e ci~ult ~u~, n~v~r ar~ ~t ~in ~ th&t ~o ro~niA$ ~u~t GU ~n~ ~n~ent ~t~lity cfi paai~lar ~in$ cI~j~lfion in a ~g l~9on ~i~tio~ of.t~ ~q~h~d~.pl~d ~e~i~uit ~u~ ~ly the d~,nts, ltitty d~le ~t. ~ver, ~--,-t~ fr~ntlv ' ~-~ Or sno~-~ne un~or- cl~tion over a ~b~t p~ M~, ~e ~r M ~ ~n d~ision ~ m~ in this not le~l~ivc ~ ~mm. A ~M~ to s ~c ~ni~ ol me publf~ out ~ appd- p~in$ ~ which I d~don sppli~i~ of s f~d~ deba~bl¢, a pn~ f~ie ~ ~t ~ ~~ ~ the ~mp~dv, pl~.~ . ID:}OSIAS'AND G~N '~ TEL N0:7714923 ~9 '$TRICW COURTS OF A, PPEiL Di~r ~tifi~ at ~ h~ng W ~ntor~ ~g . ~gudic~ ~vi~,e trier ~ ~ng applier m~t ~ enter~ by ~ ~in~ aumonty to ~~y ~sl~ deuying the Imd~' ~u~t~ ~ or t~r V. Wc hold air: thoro ofbro~ general ~li=tfion, ~n~btute legislsti~ ~ti~ ~blishin$ ml~ of law of ~eml appli~ti~: govemm~l s~ion which in ~b~ in~lv~ l~ pro~ ~dcr ~n existing ~n~ifions), ~g~dl~s ~f ~ for a site p]~ app., or w~tev~) d~ not con~ti~ ~ und~ ~$ ~we~ cla~e of ~e s~te consti~tion 3, Ha. Co,~.) ~d t~ ~mtion of ~rs d~tfine of ~Uait- ~ h~ li~ti~ or t~tNcting or resisting c~ m of 1~ to $~tion 2 of~e F~ Co~itution, and implieat~ t~ ~' S<tion 21, Hod~ Co~i~tio~, for prot<~on of ~o~ ~fi- 0) ~d~en adve~ly ~t~ b~ ~e ~tion ~Hate ~u~ or ~s s~tc ~ ~fl judicial t~ew ~h g~- ~nml action. (4) $~ · ~y o~', fish too~ ~d ~yin~ or tbfidg~ ~at right a ~bj~l to clo~j~i~ e~n~l ag~ ~ ~tcv~ name it ~y ~ ~y~g legisla~ l~d ~ r~tfictio~ ~ ~cular~ls.of pn~ly ~ l~ds, ~t smt~ r~n$ for ~ · e ~ given for ~e ~ult oftb~ ~tion ~n. ~t h~ ~on or appli~ion for ~ of pfi~toly o~ wettam or ~e ~pu~¢ ~d (3) that ~e ~titio~ ~d- d~al wi~out ~jv~ r~ s~fl~ by ~a~ ~e ~ a~thodty't le~on ~nying their ~uest~ d~pr~ ~ othc~ ~nti~ ~ui~ of ly, ~c ~ti~on for ce~io~ in ~Js ~ ~s franl~, ~c oc~r P~IQN G~ED, (G~HO~, C.J., COWART ~ J 163.31~(6Xa),~. ~ pbM DISTRICT COURT~ OF APPEar, tS Ft.W ",,~Y, Lr,, Ccmm,~{ v. Mt, U.I. , I i i ~,. ~ p~y ~{l M ~ ~ken ofjum '~ ~ co~flc~ pan ~islom ~co{~ ~ ~u~ I{~ ......... CRy.' Ibc ~ Or ~l ~i~ ~ ~ 1991). ~,. ~. ~ ~ ~ty ~., ~) ~ ?74 ~, ug p:~[ l: t quui.j~id aci{~ , ~ ~p~, ~9~ ~.~ 167 · . a~, 5~ ~.~ 2qO ~i. IU ~A 199t~ (in ~i~ ez~c7~ cm~ ~c gO~d i~ p~y ~ieI ~ ;~ ~M e.:.S~o or ~ (.~- en m ~ ~s p~d m an i~ ~ htk7 v. Ci~ of {~. A{~ ~, ~ll. 1989); ~oei~ ~ia hn~ip v. P~ ~E~ ~," { FA.U. ~ Rev. 4~(1~. __~e, t~., St. ~m C~y v. ~s, lgS~ ~ ~, 5~ ~ 481 ~. 1~; ~m "~, Wffdte o/ ~ y. ~tr he~vc ~ni~ pl~, ~ ~vcd a o~c~ ar ~a ~ of ~m, may ~)c ~muM ora ~ inf~c~ or ~niif of, z~c~e ~j~. ~ of a~or laju~ ~ ~ p~e~ of i:~l~ tvec~on,. ~ ~ p~ioM of ~ ~ ~{~c ~'et~tLo~er, vi, I* Respo~d,nto. ** CASz HOB, 88-1324 "' 65-~33S x vr£~ o~ Ce~o~er~ to the C~rcu~t Cou~ o~ ~de County, ~ober~ ~. ~o~er and ~oland ~, ~ob/nson~ Robert A. Oins~rq, Cou~tz A~or~y, and Bileen BalX ~eh2a an~ ~liq 2. Col~er, * ~udge Berkdull p&rtict}e~ in deol~/on only. w~e~Ing o~ ~e ~a~e ~y C~Lea~, We hoXd ~it co~lse~on ~less ~i ~eg~ ~oves ~a~ ~e ~Aoa~Aon vu no~, in ~ao~, preJu~oLal. For ~ho reasons ~ follow, operate a ~ic~ oil ohange bus~ness on his p~er~y ad~acen~ ~a~ o~ ~e~l~loner ~e~/n~s. ~ht Zon~g ~peale Board g~an~ed Scha~z~an's ~e~es~. ~e ~Y co~ssion u~held ~he decision. Six dame prAor ~o ~he o~isoicn,s action, a lobbyis~ 2-1~.l(l) O~ ~he ~de ~y O~i~eas. ~a~ngl dad ~ob~A.~ ~n~ the oonAssLon or o~a~se challe~e ~6 yo~l~/n~ ~e ~ieo~on order, ~eanAngs flied an actLon for declara~o~ and Ln~ctLye reeler ~ oL~At eo~ wherein he ~e~/n~s due ~r~eos ~ under ~e ~i~. S~ete. and co~s~A~utio~ as well as section (A)(8) o~ ~e cAtizen8, Rlqhts; Dado Countz ~a~er. ~e~lnqi revolted ~e court inlu~c~ion pr~i~t~in~ use o~ ~e-prop.2 aa ~1~ ~ ~e oo~y. ~se~ u~n ~e ~den~lcaX o~ ~e pe~t~e~ VIF~OO oonl~L~u~ a nutsa.~ ~AG~ ~e re~ested ~e co~ to en~oin, o~ the ~mp~ain~, a~a~,~ ~ o~u~ gave ~a~t~s leave only a~a~no~ ~.ae co~w ~o anena ~e o~u~latn~ and Zo ~ra~te~ ~e uat~er ~o ~ a~el~a~e d~vtst~ o~ ~e circuit ~u~. ~o ~iaX cou~ deni~ S~atfuan,g Re, ion ~o disaiss Court2 II tnd re~/r~ bin to gale la answer. ~en~tng8 ~ea ~i~ly fil~ ~is applica~ion for o~oa ltw certiorari. ee have ~lsdictio~ b~ed on the following analysis. ~e co, on l~v oe~ttor~t r~tev ~uravant eo ~ade county However, a~ce ~e ~n~ o~ ex ~he mxlm~X~ record, mu~ ~eviev v~ld Of ~e conZac~s, t~ac~ on the o~der has ~e e.e~ ~en or uo =ad'~beXX~ al~erl~ ~e relAef available ~o ~e~t~o ~at t~ ~. timelF pet~2~on aotivaYe~ our oo~o~ la~'ce~i~rar~ ~sdLo~on -3- 413 (F~a. OS O.~. ~20, 42 L,Zd,3~ 7~S (~JTS) I K~_~.~eY. v, P~par~en~ e~ at S.~, 006, 80 L.Ed, X~SB (~J3~); ~.s~e~ 'Gll~ettor. ~nc. v~ -4- 410 lo. Id {48, 6S3 CYll, 3d ~ 1083),1 an ex pa~. connotation ~ofl a ~as~-~A~tal do~eAon in ~ine to zeb~ ~ on the re~r~. ~, ~, ~CDa~son ~ ~eraXa~, ~02 U.S. 389, 410, tX ~.Ct, 14~0, ~g L,~,Id 842 ~,A~ed AiF .~i~,__Xn~. v, C.A.B., 309 F,Id ~38 (D.C, C~r. ~ar~9~ y,_ s~r/vener, 225 F.Supp, 8~7, 834 (D.~.C, 1964), O~or vho~her ~ vas na~eria~ ~o ~he ~oin~ ~a~ ~ pra~udice~ co~l&lni~ pa~ and ~ug resulted in & denial o~ p~oo~ural d,~e ~e~A~m yam ~o% d~i~ ~e ~ooemm ~e~ume ~e e&~e~ ~ev mho~x~ ~vo ~ o~ an ex pa~e ~o~oa~iom d~e ~nda~o~ regLm~a~on ra~e~ O~ ~ob~im%m. ~e ~n~dm ~a~ ~~s fa~2e~ ~o a~i~ h&~e~f o~ mock,on o~ ~e ~de Covn%y ~de ~o ~poana ~e 2~byim~ ~o ~e hmm~&n~ mo sm ~o de~eo~ an~ re~%e ~e con~e~ o~ any ex Ex ~a~e c~unica%lonm &re A~eFantIM improper and are Xovmver, va rec~ize ~o ~emlA~y ~ha~ c~lmmione~e are ele~e~ o~ficial~ &n ~tc~ oapao&W ~ny may un~void~ly be ~amt-~d&cial ~t~erm ~ey a~ t~ decide. ~e oc~re~e of mu~ a co~n~ca~on In a ~am/-Jud~cial ~r~eed/n~ d~ee not na~a%o autoBatl~ ~evermal. ~~eless~ we hol~ allega~lon o~ pre~udioe res~lnq ~ e~ ~arte Con, ecrm decim~on ~kerm In I ~as&-~udioial ~r~e~inq mta~em a cause o~ par2y's ~OO~ ~a2 tn ex pa~e ~n~ac~ cc~rr~ pressed to ~ pFe~udAo~al ~leJs ~e defeMan~ p~vem ~o~ra~ bM ~npeten% evidence. J ~0.304. See ~enera,~X~ v. m~v/m~o~ of P~irenemt, 27a 80.28 438 (7la. ~970) (for dim~mLon of r~ut~b~e ~ree~p~l~ a~fecting the bu~e~ o~ FEB-28-'92 l?:IG ]D:~OSIAS AND GOREN TEL N0:~14923 a e~ 'm dooimio~i~ O0~n&c~tio~ ~e ~ .~ ..... ei~her am to an inn~ent paz~y o~ ~o ~e p~lic ~n~erest tha~ the aqea~ ~s ~llged · 0 p~o~e~. In ~aM~g thAo ~t~e~inatiom, n~er o~ oonmi~erationm maZ ~e ~e ~vi~y o~ ~e ex ~e ~e~her ~e con~c~s may ~ve An~lue~e4 ~e agency's ul~ima~e ~eoim~on~ m~ing ~e ~o~er co~ca~c~ ~ene~G con~e~, of ~he ~~t~cto~ were to opp~ing plates, vbo ~ere~ore had of ~o ~ge~OI deo~gLo~ ~d re. nd ~or ney stnce ~e ~rincl~ai oonoe~$ o~ ~e oo~ are ~e integrity o~ ~e ~rocess ann ~e place ~ a ~udAc~al decision .~e~er ~o vacate a voidable age,c2 pr~eeding. bo an ~ereise of e~l~able discretion. AOOOra ~__&_.! X~in~r, ..Ina. ~. Pollution ~nt~ol_M., lls App. :d ma~, 4si Y.n.=d sss, S~X (~. ~P. 1083), ~; Ztt.ad 23, 40~ M.Z.ad ~Sd C198S). Aooordinvty, va hold ~t ~e a~ega~ion o~ a p~e~iotal -?- ee~li~a, ~e ef~endin~ ~a~y viii be ~ir~ ~ p~e an ~t a~ ~~ioa~ion ~l~ aid ~F amen~, ~enni~a shal~ be ~rovid~ ~esen~ ~la p~ ~aoie ~.e ~at ex ~a~e contacts ~ou~e~. p~oduce eno~g~ evidenoe to dispel light O~ ail t~e evl~enoe ~ ~e Gase. 2 zn su~h a p~ee~A_n~, t~e pcin~iples ar~ aaxins of e~it¥ appli~able. ~A~ 23 ria.~x.~d ~ J! 44, er. ~eq. (z~so). on anM ~avor~ia.avidence presented 8~ing ~e clax~c 8 oaee ~n-ohLe~ ino~ud~ ~t adduce~ durinq ree~nden~'e cros~- 4 ~nder ~e ~ tGa~ ad~, one o~ ~e ~r~a~ conce~ Is whether ~0 ~~e ~unioation had eu~lote~t, ~ot u~n ~e dacieica ~d~ ~harefo~e~ ~e~e~ fha vacation cz ~e aqen~, ~ decAsion ~ ~em~ ~r a ~ew p~a~lmg wouI~ be l~kelM t~ c~n~ ~e re~ul~, -9- Tn sup~o~c o£ its arg~en~, ~&~ ,,It]hie CentiMe a~e.~ ~. nude ~oF ~e purism o~ ~F~gl~ ~is case vt~ln vha~ ~e ~en~n~en~l deaor~e an a Xeglala~ive-~ion exception Xa~a~e iff ~e C~al_~eef opinion, p&zti~larly the d~c~a =l~ is ~e charaQte~ o~ ~e a~nLs~ra~Lve ~ar/~ leadin~ action O~ tho a~inis~ra~ive b~M ~&~ de~e~nee ~e lab41~ as ~erea, ~e ~raoter o~ ~ a~iniltra~lve h~ring viii 4a~e~l~e ~e~er ~e ~r~~ la ~asi-~icial or ex~tive. ~A isl.)('~e ~asi-~udicial ~tu~e o~ · preceding altered ~ mera procedural flaws.w). its shat&tear as fAC~I and ~der ltv8 supposed already ~o tximt, ~a~ 2~ ~8 ~r~oso and end. ~q~sla~on; on ~are the lines o~ de~areatio~ betweG~ the '~ev~al monee should a~cXQns.3 ~'EB-28-'92 17:12 ID:JOS1AS AND GO~EN TEL N0:?71~92~ ~510 ~J ove enc sm so.ad Ma~~..~gActy, ~n~. v, City of Yo~t ~u~erdal~, (19793. ~oral .~ef C&so.Clarl_f[_e~ ~ involved · levLsl&~lva action. ~he issue before l~?S ~nial m~ an appl~cati~ ~or t~e ~ame ~an~et, ~ ~e same parcel, bM the e~ a~pl~aa~, would no2 ba p~eol~de~ bM rea ~udica~a prinoiplms. 2~ Vas ~ neceesa~ ~o hold ~he I~?I ~here is ~udicial and legAs2a~Ave p~oceed/nge in land use oases. a requiremen~ £e~ ~rooe~ral £airness in all land use w~ether cn a~ a~plication £cr a M~ndary change er a ~hmren~ to tha~ cons~i~ut/o~l standa~ however, FE~-25-'92 t?:~ ]D:JOSIAS AN~ P~OREN TEL N0:??149~] ~510 P~4 C~ieSio~ In l~d ~e oases goes ~ar bel~ ~e actual hcldl~ o~ ~ann£~s a~fuas 'h&~e that t3~e behind-thc-scenes 3.~]:,)}Yingi of ~e c~imsionara by Soha~lnan, ~or iht purpose o~ influencing -14-' t D: JOS I AS P~D GOREN TEL ~:~14~3 ~510 P05 ~e~ud~ As to be ~rea~ed~ ~l~ou~ ~ther pr~, ~rou ~e ne~ssarily addressed IOleLy tc ~o'~i~LtI Qf ~e petltLon, a~ cc~on ~cwledqe as ~c h~ ~e practice ~z~, ~ere i~ a co~elll.q reason ~or pla~lnq ~e bu~den ~ proving no ~re~udice ~ ~e par~y raspon~ible ~cr ~e ex paste cc~ica~loa. FEB-28-'92 17:14 ]D:ZOSIAS AND GOREN TEL ~:~714~3 ~510 P06 ~udicialiy denio8 ~t ~a~ies ~ ~air, o~n, ~nd imperial heariW, 597 P.2d 654 (~979). A~orance ~o pr~ures ~ich bus also ~,o tho ~lin%enanoe o~ of the -%d- EB-~S- 9. 17:14 TEL ~51'8 PO? ~~ee v. ~le~d~ ~, 8e~t O~iI~, 44~ I~,~d ~0 ~ in dia~Xi~MLn9 ~dfe), ~ae a~99 ~e~ v, r~i_~en, 430 Scott Miller: May 14,1993 This letter relative to the subject variance, was in fact provided to each Department Head (TRC Member) and was considered under factors to be reviewed and discussed during the TRC Meeting. The applicant was present at the Meeting and was in fact notified of -. GEE & JENSON the date, time and place of the. meeting . . ) as well as his right to present testimony in support of the variance West Palm Beach, request. Thank you. ~ ~ Telephone (407)683-3301FL 33~09 06/08/93 Mr. Vincent Finizio ~/'~~~,~.' City of Boynton Beach /~'/-'- "-'".- ~ ¢'~' ~- P.O. Box 310 /___~Y ~" Received ~-:':'i- ' ~',e,~,4~c~' ,~---~'.' Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310 . .,.:._~ MAY 7 7 1993 ~, ~ ,,,t,,~, ~r/~.. /~' ~ev;,r~iCitea i~ba~aolnP~l~ekaeg~sftOsr Master Subdivision approval for th~10 acre ~de of Lawrence Road approximately 1,000 feet south of Hypoluxo Road. This submittal consists of seven copies of the Subdivision Master Plan, Traffic Study, service letters, Master Storm Water Management Plan and submittal fees. Gee & Jenson will be acting as agents for M/I Homes in their processing of this application. In addition to {he Subdivision Master Plan Submittal, we are requesting a variance from the Code of Ordinances, Appendix 'C"-, Section 1. Access. 'This section requires that points of access to lots within a subdivision be a minimum of 180 feet from intersecting lines of right-of-way with classifications higher than a local street. This situation will exist at the entrance to Jonathans Grove. Lots 1, 2, 31 and 32 will have driveways within this distance. Lots 3 and 30 could also have a minimal encroachment depending upon the location of their driveways. We are requesting a variance from this requirement to allow driveways to access the Jonathans Grove internal roadway within this 180 feet. Jonathans Grove is a 10 acre parcel with limited frontage on Lawrence Road. Maintaining the 180 feet of throat distance would severely impact development of the western portion of the site for single family lots. Minimum lot widths and lot areas established as part of the Land Use Amendment and Rezoning have dictated the layout of the site. This i~roposed plan has 32 lots which is one lot less than the rezoning approval due ~o the on-site provision of water management facilities. Restrictions placed upon access to lots would further reduce the number of lots below the current rezoning approval. Another element important to consideration of this variance is the small size of this project. With only 32 lots, which equates to a total of 320 tdps per day, there will not be a prOblem with traffic backing up at the entrance to the development When cars are City of Boynton Beach Attn: Mr. Vincent Finizio May 14, 1993 - Page 2 accessing the driveways which fall within the 180 foot distance. With the provision of landscape easements along the entrance of the devetopment and the distance to the travel lane of Lawrence Road, stacking will exist before the first driveway opening. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. Very truly yours, B. Scott ~-- lrlc. BSB/Ig 91-351 CC.' Chuck Sharman Glen Nicotra 40' JONATHANtS GI~OVE DEVELOPI~ENT 5' High Masonry Wall (Typ.) 1 2 Sign Wall Special City Comm~ssi June 10, 1993 3 4' Sidewalk 65' uJ 32 Model Lift Station 30' ccess Drive 31 30 Model Model 60' RiW ~ _ 11'~ 1 1' · 4'_,~ 1-1/2 Ty~ il--- ~ Asph~.ltic ~ /~,' 6-1/2' ,-,on~rete Limerock Base '~ (Compacted) ~ Swale .~,,~ ~,, [ ~.. ~ ...... _, ..