Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/1997

Home

Page 8 December 15, 1996 Z.B. strict limits on the evidence presented. The company objected, arguing the decision was not legislative, and that formal procedures like those used in court should govern the hearings. The company claimed the decision simply involved applying existing policy to a specific piece of property. The planning commission conducted the hearing as a legislative proceed- ing, and members of the public spoke in opposition to the proposal. The com- mission unanimously recommended that the county commissioners deny the proposal. The commission's report cited various environmental and engineer- ing considerations that it said supported its conclusion, also noting the public opposition to the plan. The county board of commissioners next held its hearing. The planning commission's attorney stated the plan was a "legislative land use policy deci- sion of the highest order," and that the decision "affects the entire county and everybody in it." The commissioners heard public comment (ail opposed to the proposal) and voted against the proposal. The company sued in state court for an order directing the board of com- missioners to forward its proposal. According to the company, the compre- hensive plan designation for the property included landfills, so no new land use category was needed. It claimed the proposed landfill would not have any harmful impact and its proposal was consistent with the comprehensive plan and state law. The company said the county violated its right to due process and had not acted in accordance with state law. The county argued its decision on the proposal was legislative and the company was not entitled to court-like procedures. The court ruled the county's decision was legislative so it would not review the decision closely. It noted that if the company's proposal were adopted, landfills possibly could be located anywhere state environmental agencies permitted. The court also concluded the proposal would affect the county's general population. Landfills were not clearly defined in the comprehensive plan, so the proposal created a new land use classification. Because the county's decision was legislative, the court concluded it was not authorized to review the decision. The court also rejected the company's other claims. The company appealed, arguing the lower' court should have reviewed the county's decision. It argued the conclusion that the decision was legislative ignored the historic use of the property, the company's agreement with the county, the presence of the landfill, and the comprehensive plan. DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court properly refused to review the county's decision to reject the proposal. The county board's decision was legislative, not judicial. Court- like procedures were not required in the hearings on City Environmental's proposal. Hair, es City Community Develot~me~t v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (1995). ?ark of Coramerce Associates v. City of Delray Beach, 636 So.2d 22 (1994).