Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/07/1995

Home

Page 6 -- February 1995 z.g. notice from which they could have appealed. Therefore, they asked the court to waive the 45-day deadline, claiming the interests of justice demanded an extension. DECISION: Judgment granted in favor of the committee. The neighbors could not sue late. There were no exceptional circumstances here, and the interests of justice did not require a deadline extension. The neighbors did not prove any violation of the Open Public Mee!ings 'Act-- even if there were any improper nonpublic discussions, they were made public when the ordinance was introduced and adopted. Also, the neighbors did not prove any bias in favor of Wal-Mart. Just because committee members thought Wal-Mart would be good for the township did n°t mean they did any- thing wrong. Nor did they prove the ordinance was inconsistent with the master plan. There was nothing to show the master plan's land use map was intended to zone any specific lots -- it was a guide 'and its boundary lines could have been blurred. Riggs v. Long Beach Townshilg, 538 A.2d 808 (1988). Special Permit., , Houseboat Owner Claims Ban on Canal Living is Unconstitutional Dozier v. City of Miami, 639 So. 2d 167 (Florida) 1994 In 1982, the city of Miami, Fla., adopted a zoning ordinance that required special permits for live-aboard vessels (houseboats) on the Little River Canal. In 1985, Dozier bought two lots of land next to the canal. She got a special permit to use a houseboat in the canal, but the local homeowners association appealed. The city commission reversed the granting of the permit. Dozier never appealed the city commission's decision. In 1986, Dozier moved her houseboat to the lots she owned in the canal, and began living in it. The city charged her with violating the ordinance, and its decision was affirmed by the courts. In March 1987, the city changed the. Ordinance to prohibit houseboats in the canal. Its decision was based on the canal's unique historical and environ- mental characteristics, the effect of wastewater and other discharges fi'om house- boats into the canal, and the visual effect houseboats had on residential proper- ties bordering the canal. In June 1987, Dozier sued the city. She sought a finding that the city's actions regarding houseboats were invalid. She also claimed the ordinance was being applied to her unfairly, since her neighbor lived in a houseboat. While the case was pending, Dozier agreed to waive her claims for dam- ages and civil rights violations. In return, the city agreed not to enforce the new ordinance until the court determined whether it was constitutional. In 1990, the city prohibited houseboats throughout the entire city, and did not provide for special exceptions or permits. After a trial, the court ruled the ordinance was constitutional. Dozier appealed. DECISION: Affirmed.