Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/06/1998

Home

Z.B. November 25, 1997 Page 3 considered under the county ordinances then in effect. The developer had a vested right to have its proposal considered under the county's zoning regulations, and if they were met, to have the city's approval. The city was correct that the PUD was not in effect when the developer filed its subdivision application; the PUD was still only a proposal. But the county's zoning ordinances that were in effect alIowed the developer to show its proposed PUD complied with various land use regulations. If the county agreed, it would have had to adopt an ordinance granting a preliminary PUD. The city's claim that the vested rights doctrine didn't apply because a PUD required a zoning amendment if the application was approved was irrelevant. The developer didn't claim the city had to approve its plan outright, it claimed only the right to have its application considered under the county ordinances that allowed for townhouses in a PUD. see also: Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 9J3 P..2d 417 (]996). Subdivision m Developer says commission relied on neighbors' testimony rather than substantive evidence Metropolitan Dade County v. Sportacres Development Group Inc., 698 So.2d 281_ (Florida) 1997 Sportacres Development Group Inc. owned a 107-acre abandoned golf course zoned single family in Dade County, Fla. It wanted to deveIop a 372- unit subdivision with an 18-acre lake on the property. Sportacres' property was bounded on two sides by property developed with multifamily attached residences and on two sides by property developed with s ingle-family detached houses. ImmediateIy north of the single-family residential area next to Sportacres' property was a large area being developed for apartment complexes. Sportacres filed a zoning application seeking a use variance to allow the excavation of an 18-acre lake and a variance of lot area and frontage requirements for its proposed subdivision. It sought permission to develop the subdivision with lots varying in frontage from 50 feet to 74.99 feet in an area with a 75-foot minimum frontage requirement, and lots on cul-de-sacs with a minimum frontage of 33 feet where 50 feet was required. It also sought a minimum lot area of 4,500 square feet where 7,500 square feet were required. The Dade County Zoning Appeals Board approved Sportacres' application with 39 conditions. A group of neighbors appealed to the county commission. The neighbors testified that with the lake and the variances, the subdivision's lots would be of substandard size and would, therefore, be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. They apparently claimed Sportacres' property was subject to a restrictive covenant requiring minimum lots of 7,500 square feet. The neighbors also claimed the lake would pose a health hazard, and said the substandard lots would have a negative effect on their property values. Sportacres claimed the neighbors' testimony was not competent. It als° showed its property was not subject to a restrictive covenant requiring a