Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/1996

Home

Page 6 -- March ~996 Z.B. Planning ~ Owner Says Street Project Will Restrict Access to His Property Robbin~ v. City of Miarni Beach, 664 So.2d 1150 (Florida) 7_995 Robbin~ was developing for multifamily housing property he owned in the city of Miami Beach, Fla. The cit~ developed a "streetscape improvement project" that would nar- row the street bordering Robbins' property. The plan would eliminate one of the street's![three lanes. Robbins said the city's comprehensive land use plan required tht~ee lanes. Under State law, anyone wh6 .would be adversely affected by a proposed project could challenge the development order as inconsistent with a municipal comprehensive land use plan. The law defined development as "the carrying out of any ~uilding activity .... themaking of any material change in the use or appearanceiof any structure or land, or the dividing of land into three or more parcels." It s~>ecifically excluded from "development" road maintenance or improve- ments if th~work was done on land within the boundaries of the right-of-way. Robbin~sued to stop the project, relying on the i'development order" law. He argued t]ae project was inconsistent with the city s comprehensive land use plan and w0~uld restrict access to his property. The court dismissed Robbins' complaint and said he could not refile it. The court found~Robbins could not challenge the project because it involved work within the b{:)undaries of the city's right-of-way. Robbins! appealed. DECISIONi Reversed and returned to the lower court. The appeals court upheld the dismissal, but reversed the trial court's deci- sion that Robbins could not resubmit his claim. Robbinslcould not challenge the project as a development order. The work for the proj4ct would be within the boundaries of the city's right o'f way, and such work Oas specifically excluded from the statute's definition of develop- ment order. However, there was nothing to stop him from otherwise seeking relief as long as he could sh, ow he had standing to challenge the project. Board o~County Corem rs v. Department of Community Affairs, 560 So.2d 240 (1990).: Citizens .°f Growth Management Coalition Inc. v. City of West Pahn Beach Inc., 450 So.2d 204 (1984). Subdivision ~ Condo Owners Sue Town for Failing to Enforce Plan Condition Stillwateb Condominium Association v. Town of Salem, 668 A.2di38 (New Hampshire) 1995 A developer wanted to subdivide into two lots land he owned in the town of Salem, N.H. He planned to build on one lot a slx-unit residential condominium Called gtillw0ter Manor. At hearings before the town Planning Board, the developer said Stillwater would be con{nected to a municipal water extension through another town. The board approv~ed the plan subject to approval by the state Water Supply and Pollution Cohtrol. Division. The division approved the subdivision as long as both lots wo~ld be serviced by municipal water.