Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/04/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin June 25, 2011 1 Volume 5 ( No. 12 The court remanded the matter for further proceedings to deter- mine whether Industrial Communications was entitled to relief — from the denial of the variance —under the Act. See also: Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351, 34 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1785, 22 En- vtl. L. Rep. 20913 (1992). See also: Daniels v. Town of Londonderry, 157 N.H. 519, 953 A.2d 406 (2008). Case Note: The court acknowledged that "[t]he situation could be quite different if the Slades' legal rights under state law were unaffected by the decree." However, since the consent decree would eliminate those rights, the court determined that the "most appropriate time and place" to raise the issue of the va- lidity of the decree was in the court considering the decree. Case Note: The Slades had also challenged, under state law, the authority of the town to settle the case on behalf of the Board. The court found that that state law issue need not be resolved in this case because the Slades were free to carry on the suit and protect their interests directly. Nonconforming Use —City Refuses to "Grandfather In" Property Owners' Short -Term Rental Use Owners argue use is legally nonconforming because they complied with unchallenged interpretation of old ordinance Citation: Allen v. City of Key West, 2011 WL 1485992 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2011) FLORIDA (04/20/11)—This case addressed the issue of whether owners' use of their properties for short-term rentals was a lawful nonconforming use in light of the fact that their use complied with their unchallenged interpretation of the old ordinance. The Background/Facts: Russell and Linda Allen and several others (collectively, the "Owners") owned property in the City of Key West © 2011 Thomson Reuters 5