Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/1998

Home

Z.B. March 10, 1.998 Page 3 two of the six factors. Editor's Note: This decision was unpublished, and may be subject to further appellate review. see also: A.P. & W. Holding Corporation v. Planning and Zoning Board of Milford, 355 A.2d 91 (1974). Farina v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 254 A.2d 492 (1969). Special Exception--Power company wants to build substation next to residential City of Dania v. Florida Power & Light, Court of AppeaI of Florida, Fourth District, Docket No. 97-1657 (1998) Florida Power & Light wanted to build an electrical substation in the city of Dania, Fla. The property, which was zoned commercial, was adjacent to residential property. An electrical substation wasn't a permitted use of the property under the city code, but it could be allowed by special exception..The power company applied to the city for a special exception. The City Planning & Zoning Board recommended denying the power company s application. The city commission held a public hearing on the matter, at which members of the public and expert witnesses on both sides testified. A real estate appraiser and a certified land planner both testified that the substation would depress nearby residential property values. The land planner said no amount of landscaping or setback would make the substation compatible with a residential neighborhood. Area residents testified they would not have bought homes in the neighborhood if a substation had been there. The city denied the power company a special exception. It found the power company's proposal failed to meet two of the seven requirements for a special exception: "[T]he use will not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood," and "the use will be compatible with adjoining development and the intended purpose of the district in which it is to be located." The power company appealed to court. It claimed the city couldn't rely on the testim6ny of citizens in denying a petition for a zoning exception. It also challenged the land planner's opinion that no amount of landscaping or setback could make the substation compatible, arguing the other substations the expert based his decision on weren't sufficiently similar to the one it proposed in terms of landscaping and setback. The court reversed the city's decision, finding the power company showed its proposed use of the property for an electrical substation complied with the city code. According to the court, the city had an "especially heavy burden" of showing that the special exception request was adverse to the public interest because the exception was for essential services. The city appealed. It claimed that because there was enough lay and expert testimony to support its denial of a special exception, the trial court impermissibly substituted its own judgment for that of the city. It also claimed the court