Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/1997

Home

Z.B. March 10, i997 Page 7 evidence, r~turned the case to board to make factual findings, or accepted the board's findings; it should not have made its own finding without additional evidence. The board also claimed it did make factual findings, pointing to the statements made by board members at the hearing. DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court properly made its own factual findings without taking additional evidence. The board members' oral statements and personal observations did not amount to "findings of fact" on which the court could base its decision. Absent such findings, the court had authority to make its own. Had the board made findings, the court would have had to take additional evidence before making new ones, but that was not the case. The lower court also properly found the owners could expand their restaurant without creating a parking burden. The owners' study was a real test of the actual day-tO-day parking situation, as opposed to the township's requirements, which likely would not be met by any of the surrounding businesses. Appeal -- Was company entitled to judicial review of 'wetzone' denial? Kahana;i d/b/a Cherokee Associates v. City of Tam_pa, 683 So.2d 6!8 (Florida) 1996 Kahana owned property in the Ybor City district of Tampa, Fla., in the district's central commercial core. Property in that area could be used for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages, but only after being given a "wetzone" desigrr~ior~.~o get a wetzone designation, property owners had to apply to the Tampa City Council. Kahana applied for a w~t2¢nc ~o;~n~tion for his r~roperty. The council held a public'~ihearing at which nearby church parishioners objected to Kahana's petition. Kahana's property was. surrounded by the church, a retirement center and a corrections department half-way house, among other properties. It was on tl~e edge 6f an expanding wet district. After the' council denied the designation, Kahana asked a court to review the d'ec'fs~or~'.~The city asked the court to dismiss the appeal, saying the city council's decision had been legislative rather than quasi-judicial. Legislative decisions we.re not subject to review by the courts. LegislatiUe decisions created a "general rule of policy," while quasi-judicial decisions applied an existing rule to a specific property. The city claimed its decision was' legislative because it affected a large number of citizens -- particularly the church parishioners who opposed the wetzone's designation. The court, refused to review the council's decision, and Kahana appealed. DECISION: iReversed and returned to the lower court. Kanaha's appeal should not have been dismissed because the city didn't prove its deci*ion was legislative. The true !est of the nature of the council's decision was not how many people it affected or whether residents were up-~n-arms, as the city seemed