Laserfiche WebLink
March 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 6 Zoning Bulletin <br />that LUBA could only reverse the City council's decision approving <br />Fregulia's home occupation permit if it found that the City's decision <br />was not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record. Also, the <br />court noted that it could not reverse LUBA's decision so long as LUBA <br />had applied the proper substantial -evidence standard of review as <br />required by Oregon statutory law, ORS 197.835(9)(a)(C). <br />Here, the court found that LUBA properly applied the standard of <br />review. LUBA had referred to evidence on which the City had relied in <br />reaching its decision (i.e., Fregulia lived on the Property; no customers or <br />sales were allowed on the Property; no signage was proposed; and'condi- <br />tions were imposed limiting trucking activities). The court found that the <br />Stevens did not contest that evidence. <br />Accordingly, the court concluded that although "a commercial truck- <br />ing operation is not the sort of occupation that commonly occurs within <br />the home," it had to affirm LUBA's decision since LUBA properly <br />understood and applied the substantial -evidence test. <br />See also: Younger v. City of Portland, 305 Or. 346, 752 P.2d 262 <br />(1988). <br />See also: Citizens for Responsibility v. Lane County, 218 Or..App. <br />339, 180 P.3d 35 (2008). <br />Proceedings After city adopts <br />local development order, residents <br />seek referendum to repeal it <br />City contends such referendum is statutorily <br />barred <br />Citation: Archstone Palmetto Park, LLC v. Kennedy, 2014 WL 305086 <br />(Fla. 4th DCA 2014) <br />FLORIDA (01/29/14) This case addressed the issue of -whether <br />development orders are statutorily banned from referendum in Florida. <br />The Background/Facts: In Febriary,2012, the City of Boca Raton <br />(the "City") adopted Ordinance 5203 (th6 "Ordinance"). The Ordinance <br />amended a previously -approved development order by, among other <br />things, setting additional development approval requirements for a four - <br />acre parcel of land owned by Archstone Palmetto Park, LLC <br />("Archstone"). Thus, although the Ordinance was styled as an amend- <br />ment, it was a "local government development order." <br />One month after the Ordinance's passage, a group of Boca Raton <br />residents (the "Residents") collectively filed a petition, seeking a citywide <br />referendum to determine whether the Ordinance should be repealed. The <br />8 © 2014 Thomson Reuters <br />