Laserfiche WebLink
Page 6- April 25, 1997 <br /> <br />Z,B. <br /> <br />the excavated area would qualify as a borrow pit. <br /> After Paciera began the project, the parish revoked his permit, and said the <br />resolution had no effect because it contradicted the zoning ordinance. Paciera <br />appealed the decision to the Zoning Appeals Board, which ruled the permit <br />was illegal and properly revoked. <br /> Paciera sued the parish, and the court reversed the board's decision. It said <br />the council's decision not to have a moratorium was valid.'The parish appealed. <br />DECISION: Reversed. <br /> The council improperly tried to contravene a provision in the zoning <br />ordinance, so its resolution had no merit. <br /> Changes could be made to the zoning ordinance, but only if proper <br />procedures (holding public hearings, etc.) were followed. The council didn't <br />attempt to change the ordinance -- it merely disregarded the provision. A <br />resolution had to comply with an ordinance, not the other way around. Therefore, <br />the moratorium was valid, and Paciera's permit was illegal. <br /> James v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, 108 So.2d JO0. <br /> <br /> Code Violation -- County says resident can't keep his business vehicles at <br /> home <br /> Metropolitan Dade County v. Goldberg, 687 So.2d 7 (Florida) ]996 <br /> Goldberg owned a home in a single-family residential district in Dade <br /> County, Fla. A licensed exterminator, Goldberg based his business out of his <br /> home, where he kept his business phone and three vehicles (a pickup, a van and <br /> a Ford Bronco) he used to do his work. <br /> The Dade County Code outlined the restrictions on business activity in the <br /> residential district. In short, it said a resident could have a business phone at home <br /> as long as he or she didn't keep a "truck, heavy equipment, or similar vehicle"at <br /> home, or use the property to store items for the business. When it mentioned trucks <br /> or heavy equipment, the county was referring to large vehicles like dump trucks, <br /> tractors or backhoes that would disrupt the appearance of the neighborhood. <br /> The county cited Goldberg for the three vehicles he kept at his home. <br /> Goldberg requested a hearing and was found guilty of violating the.zoning code. <br /> Goldberg sued the county, arguing the zoning ordinance and the citations <br /> issued against him were unconstitutional. The county countersued, asking the <br /> court to uphold the ordinance; it also sought damages and attorney's fees. <br /> The court denied Goldberg's unconstitutionality claims. It said Goldberg <br /> couldn't appeal the citations because the hearing officer's decision on that matter <br /> was final. In addition, the court granted the county judgment on its requests for <br /> zoning enforcement and for fees and damages. However, while the court said the <br /> ordinance should be enforced, it also said Goldberg could have the three vehicles <br /> on his property, as long as he kept them draped and covered in the backyard. <br /> The county and Goldberg appealed. <br /> DECISION: Reversed in part, and returned to the lower court. <br />l~.f Goldberg couldn't keep all three vehicles on his property, but not because <br /> <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> i <br /> I <br /> ! <br /> i <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />