Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/2004

Home

Z.B. September 10,2004 - Page 5 After a hearing between Vacacion Beach and the City of Cocoa Beach, the parties agreed to allow the election to proceed with the challenged referendum on the ballot, but to stay the enforcement of the referendum if it passed, pending a final hearing on the lawsuit. The court then entered the agreement as a court order. Soon thereafter, the city passed a moratorium on issuing any new building perr11lts. Vacation Beach sued to have the court issue a contempt order against the city for violating the agreement. The court found the city in contempt. The city appealed, arguing it was not showing contempt for the court order by issuing the moratorium. DECISION: Reversed. The city did not violate the injunction and did not show contempt for the coun order. Vacation Beach did not challenge the moratorium as being beyond the commission's power, it challenged only that the city was prevented from-enact- ing a moratorium that had the same purpose and effect as the referendum measure that was the subject of the injunction. However, to say that the city could not do indirectly what it could not do directly did not solve the question whether the city could do something differ- ent but within its power that had the same purpose or effect as the referendum. If the city had the power to issue the moratorium before the referendum litigation and the injunction, nothing prevented it from taking those same mea- sures thereafter. The city did not agree to forebear height and density requirements or to place a moratorium on building. Even if the city intended its moratorium to show contempt of the coun's injunction, ir did not because the moratorium was not within the injunction. The city merely agreed to stay enforcement of the charter amendments, oot to do anything regarding height and density restrictions. see (Jlso: City of Cocoa Beach v. Vacation Beach Inc., 852 So.2d 358 (2003). \iotice - Citizen group sues to stop parking lot Claims it received insufficient llotice of hearing CilOtion: Concerned Citizens of Princeton Inc. v. ivlayor and Council of the Borough 0/ Princi!ron, Superior Court of New Jersey, App. Div., No. ,1-4461- 1):'7-:' (200.J.) .'iE\\/ JERSEY: 06/JCj()L1.j - The borough of PrincewQ adopted a master plan ih~lt retleC[ed [he need to address parking problems in [he central business ,iiScECl of the JOWDCown ~ue3.. The pian recommended the consuuClion of :1 pilj'\\J~!g raciLity ,)0 the :3ubjecL municipally-o'vvned sile. Aiter a public hearing, :h,~ []lan ',vi.!S lpproved. (=,:.t~~~rncd C:ilizens '.Jr' PrinCetCHl Inc. sued to halt (he construction. The .;; .2'Xcl :lIlnliirl .='lcllsnlng ::'(QUP. "rlV 'oODrcouc:iOrl ;s prOnlDllEd. =~r 710re inicrma(lon pi ease cali6i ~':;d2.')Gd3. 109