Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/1996

Home

Z.B. December 1995 -- Page 7 Roseberry also had to show there was insufficient evidence to prove that prop- erty rights or public safety would be adversely affected by the use of the per- mit. The city argued Roseberry had not exercised due diligence or acted in good throughout the zoning proceedings. DECISION: Reversed. The lower court improperly overturned the board's decision. Roseberry could not claim a vested right to build the second sign because the permit on which it relied was issued for an entirely different billboard -- it was impos- sible to obtain a vested right in a permit that was never issued. Roseberry never got a zoning certificate for either sign. Roseberry also did not meet the condi- tions of due diligence and good faith necessary to get vested rights. Two of the most significant considerations in sign regulation were a sign's proposed location and its advertising message. Roseberry's new sign differed from the original on both counts, so Roseberry could hardly claim a vested right to build the new sign based on the original permit. Even if Roseberry had gotten a permit or zoning certificate for the new sign, it -- through the Advanced Sign employee -- had not exercised due dili- gence or acted in good faith throughout the zoning proceedings. The Advanced Sign employee said he had experience getting permits from other municipali- ties, had read the zoning ordinance, and was concerned that the billboard did not comply. He should have known Roseberry could not begin erecting the second sign without the required permits. Randolph Vine Associates ~: Zoning Board, 573 A.2d 255 (1990). Petrosky v. Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Chicheste~; 402 A.2d 1385 (1979). Enforcement--Landowner Claims Notice of Violation Is Unconstitutional Tari v. Collier County, 56 F. 3d 1533 (Florida) J995 Tari operated a fruit tree nursery in Collier County, Fla. One day, two county investigators bought a red rose bush from him. A few days later, he received an official notice that operation of the nursery violated a county zoning ordinance. The notice stated, "[a]ll wholesale and retail operations must cease ... and all signs must be removed IMMEDIATELY upon receipt of this notice." The notice also indicated that convicted violators of the ordinance were subject to fines and imprisonment, and that each day a violation continued would be consid- ered a separate offense. Tari closed the nursery. Tari had a series of discussions with county zoning personnel. An investi- gator and the code enforcement director advised Tari that the county zoning director would review the matter at Tari's request. Instead, Tari asked a county commissioner to investigate the violation notice. Tari then received a letter from a county attorney stating that her office was looking into whether Tari actually violated the ordinance so it could give the commissioner an opinion. Tari and the county attorney spoke several times, and the attorney sent Tari another letter explaining that the county could enforce the zoning violation by