Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin May 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 9 <br />"subject to flooding," the Board could consider testimony of witnesses <br />describing their observations of water on the lots, as well as the presence <br />of FEMA flood zones which described expected occurrences of floodwater <br />and wave action on the lots. The court so concluded based on the inclu- <br />sion of the phrase "as being in fact" that preceded the phrase "subject to <br />flooding" in the bylaw. The court deteiurined that, by its express terms, <br />"in fact not subject to flooding" status permitted consideration of evi- <br />dence of the actual occurrences of flooding on the lots. <br />See also: Turnpike Realty Co. v. Town of Dedham, 362 Mass. 221, 284 <br />N.E.2d 891, 4 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1344, 3 Envtl. L. Rep. 20221 (1972). <br />Due Process —After request for <br />rezone is denied, property owner <br />alleges violations of procedural <br />and substantive due process <br />rights under the U.S. constitution <br />City argues necessary elements of claims are <br />missing and thus claims fail <br />Citation: Flagship Lake County Development Number 5, LLC v. City of <br />Mascotte, Fla., 2014 WL 961042 (11 th Cir. 2014) <br />The Eleventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida, and <br />Georgia. <br />ELEVENTH CIRCUIT (FLORIDA) (03/13/14) This case addressed <br />the issue of whether a property owner's procedural and substantive due <br />process claims were viable. The case discussed the elements necessary <br />for a successful procedural due process claim and a successful substantive <br />due process claim. <br />The Background/Facts: Flagship Lake County Development Number <br />5, LLC ("Flagship") owned a 245-acre property in the City of Mascotte, <br />Florida (the "City"). Flagship sought to have the property rezoned, under <br />a proposed ordinance (the "Ordinance"), so that Flagship could construct <br />waste disposal management facilities, methane gas recovery facilities, <br />recycling facilities, and wetlands habitat preservation areas on the <br />property. The City Council denied the Ordinance that would have rezoned <br />Flagship's property. The principal reasons for the City Council's denial <br />were: (1) unpleasant odors; (2) attraction of rodents; (3) traffic increase <br />due to garbage trucks; and (4) a "purported requirement of two distinct <br />access point/entrance ways." <br />Flagship subsequently brought a legal action in federal district court, <br />© 2014 Thomson Reuters 5 <br />