Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/05/1995

Home

Z.B. June 1995 -- Page 7 The ~Ounty denied the school's application, and the Land Use Board of Appeals ~tffirmed. The school's owner, Brentmar, appealed. He claimed that state law required the county to allow the school's application and that the county could not enact or apply ~iny criteria more restrictive than the state's criteria. DECISION: Affirmed. . The c6unty properly denied the school's permit. The school's proposal was not just a ischool with buildings essential to its operation. It included commer- cial activities and small scale energy producing fa. cilities, neither of which were allowed ~/ses under.state law. The county's criteria could not be less restrictive than stat~ law, but they could be more restrictive. Although state law allowed the count.y to permit schools in its exclusive farming use zones, it did not re- quire the county to approve all applications for schools in such zones. Board ~ Property OWner Tries to Stop Board From Hearing Appeal Peac6ck v. City of Miami, 646 So. 2d 291 (Florida) 1994 The acting zoning administrator for the city of Miami, Fla., waived on-site parking requirements for Peacock's property in Coconut Grove. The Coconut Grove Ciyic Club appealed the waiver to the city's zoning board. PeacqCk sued the city, asking the court to prohibit the board frOm hearing the club's appeal. Peacock argued that the board had no jurisdiction over'the club's appeal because the club had no right to challenge the waiver. The court denied P6acock's petition because he did not exhaust his administrative rem- edies befOre'suing. Peacc~ck appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court. The 16wer court was wrong to deny Peacock's request. As a.representative association, the club could not sue in state court unless it (as opposed to its members~ suffered some special injury. It also could not challenge a board decision 6n any ground other than "procedural irregularity." Since the club did not alleg~ any procedural irregularities, the lower court should not have con- cluded that it could resort to administrative remedies. Board i Hopes for Subdivision Approval Go Down the Drain M & MPartnership v. Sweenor, 619 N.Y.S. 2d 802 (New York) 1994 M & ,M Partnership applied to the Planning Board of the Town of Plattsburgh, N.Y., for a commercial subdivision. The board approved the pre- liminary ~ubdivision plan subject to certain conditions, including one require- ment thatiM&M would not change the existing drainage pattern~. After a long delay, M&M claimed that it satisfied all the conditions, but the town engineer disagreedi Nevertheless, M&M asked the board's authorization to start devel- opment, i The b~ard denied the application, finding that M&M had not satisfied all the condif, ions. Specifically, M&M's engineers did not show that the amount of