Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/1996

Home

Page 8 --December 1995 Z.B. either pro~;ecuting it as a misdemeanor or taking the violation before the Code Enforcem~Snt Board. The letter further explained that the county could not pros- ecute the ,iolation as a misdemeanor until her office completed its investiga- tion. In ei':her case, fines would not be assessed until after the violation was actually enforced. Aboutr,,a month later, the county attorney submitted her opinion to the com- missioner}that Tari's use of the property violated the zoning ordinance. The county issued another violation notice and tried to schedule a hearing before the Code Enforcement Board. Tari stied the county and various officials in state court and reopened his nursery. ~e asked the court for money damages and an order preventing the county frqm applying the ordinance to his property. Among Other things, Tari claimed the county's application of the ordinance to his property was arbitrary and unconstitutionally infringed on his federal due process rights. He also argued that the county -- by preventing him from operating the nursery had tempo- rarily "taken" his property and had to compensate him. The cqrse was transferred to federal court, where the county asked the court to dismissITari's due process and taking claims (which were his only federal claims). T~.e county said those claims were premature because the county had not reach ~e~d a final decision on the alleged violation; therefore, there was noth- ing for th~ court to review. Initialiy, the court refused to dismiss the case. Four years later, the court dismissed!Tari's federal claims, finding they could not go to court yet because Tari sued !before the county made a final determination. It dismissed Tari's state law claims because it had no jurisdiction over them once the federal claims were gon~. Tari a~pealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Tari's ~lue process and taking claims were premature because the county's notice of Violation was not a final decision regarding application of the ordi- nance to h.is property. This should have been obvious to Tari. Zoning personnel advised him· that the zoning director was available to review the notice. The county att.brney told Tari the county would not enforce the notice until her office con!pleted its investigation, and that he was not prohibited from operat- ing his nursery in the meantime. She also told Tari that if he disagreed with the violation ilotice he could take his case before the Code Enforcement Board. Tari shoul{:t have taken his case to the board, which had the power to make an initial detdrmination whether Tari violated the ordinance. Tari was told that if he had bro)ght his case before the board and the board had found him in viola- tion, the c.¢unty would assess fines from only that point forward. Eide ~ Sarasota Cou~O', 908 F. 2d 716, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1120, 111 S. Ct. 107~ 112 L.Ed. 2d 1179 (1991). 14"illia~i~son Cou~O, Regional Plam~i~g Commission v. Hamilto~ Bank, 473 U.S. 172, ~05 S. Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed. 2d 126 (1985).