Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/1998

Home

Page 4 -- November 10, 1998 z.go Neighbors appealed, arguing the pit and/or berm would violate the County's mandatory setback requirements. They also claimed the permit violated the zoning ordinance by allowing a 15-year project when the maximum allowed by the ordinance was five years. The county zoning ordinance required highway setbacks for any "struc- ture,'' defined as "any man-made object with form, shape and utility, either permanently or temporarily attached to, placed upon or set into the ground." The ordinance apparently set a five-year limit on conditional use permits. The board claimed the setback ordinance didn't apply because the gravel pit and temporary berms weren't "structures" as defined by the zoning ordi- nance. ' ~ The court upheld the board's decision, and the neighbors appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. '~ The permit didn't violate the zoning ordinance. Even if the safety berms and pits w6uld be closer to the road than allowed by the ordinance, which the neighbors never proved, the permit didn't violate the ordinance. The board reasonably found the pits and berms weren't struc- tures. Expanding the definition of "structure" to include a gravel pit and an earthen berm would also prohibit the placement of mail boxes, street signs, lamp posts, and fences in the setback area. The safety berms would function like a fence or screen, which the ordinance allowed the zoning committee to require for con- ditional uses. The gravel pit itself was simply a hole in the ground, neither constructed nor capable of repair or destruction. ' Nor did the permit violate the ordin'ance by eXceeding the five-year limit. The permit required that all excavation be done within 15 years, it wasn't a 15- year approvaI. The company's permit still had'to be reviewed every five years. see also: Marris v. City of Cedarburg, 498 N. W.2d 842 (1992). see also: Fryer v. Conant, 465 N.W. 2d S17 (1990). Special Use Permit-- City requires special use permit for treatment center for white-collar criminals Citation: Bannurn Inc. v. City of Fort Lq'uderdale, Fla., H th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 97-4907_ (1998) The 11 th Circuit has jurisdiction over A, labama, Florida, and Georgia. The Bureau of Prisons awarded Bannum Inc. a contract to build a commu- nity treatment center in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for federal prisoners serving the last stages of their sentences for committing nonviolent white-collar crimes. The center was to provide housing and job placement services to help partici- pants resume their lives outside prison. Bannum applied to the city for an occupational use license to operate its