Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/1997

Home

Page 8 -- April 25, 1997 the plan, but it affirmed the department's approval of the plan. The borough appealed, arguing the court was wrong to affirm, and the de- pm'tment was wrong to approve the plan without first requiring a source deed. DECISION: Affirmed. Although the deed perhaps did not contain sufficient title information, the railroad provided enough evidence to show it did own the property. All factors indicating owner.ship, not just a title record, merited consideration. Even if the boi-ough could, challenge the railroa~l's ownership of the subdivision tract, title questions like this were too complicated for the planning department or the lower court to decide. Appeal of the Board of School Directors of the Owe~ J. Roberts School District, 457A.2d 1264 (1983). Zoning Violation -- Residents say county's contract with property owner violates due process Chung v. Sarasota County, 686 So.2d 1358 (Florida) 1996 In 1990, Chung filed a petition with Sarasota County, Fla., to rezone 11 acres of land. The Sarasota County Commission denied her petition. After Chung appealed to the court, Chung and the county reached a settlement agreement, in which the county agreed to rezone the land if Chung met certain conditions and stipulations. Known as "contract zoning," the agreement functioned as a contract between the county and the property owner. The court approved the plan, and the commission bypassed certain zoning procedures involving notice and hearing requirements. The Holiday Harbor Homeowners Association and Eide, who owned property next to Chung's, challenged the agreement between Chung and the county. After a hearing, the court vacated its judgment on the agreement. Chung appealed, arguing counties had the power to enter into contracts and to settle litigation. Eide and the association claimed the agreement and the court's approval of it were invalid and violated due process and various zoning laws. Chung said the county still had to go through the formal zoning-amendment process, which would satisfy the requirements of due process. DECISION: Affirmed. The contract between Chung and the county couldn't be upheld because it violated due process. When entering the contract, the county didn't allow for the proper notice and hearings -- important steps in the legislative process. By skipping these steps, the county basically contracted away its own decision- making and police powers, which it could not do. Chung's argument -- that the county could still follow proper procedures · also wasn't valid. Any subsequent hearings on the rezoning issue would be meaningless because the county had already obligated itself to a decision. Hartnett v. Austin, 93 So.2d 86. P.C.B. Partnership v. City of Largo, 549 So.2d 738 (2989). I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I