Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/03/2005

Home

Page 4 -- February 10, 2005 Ordinance--Association claims county misread ordinance Argues its interpretation doesn't make sense Citation: Vanderbilt Shores Condominium Association Inc. v.' Collier County, Court of Appeal of Florida, 2nd Dist., No. 2D03-1594 (2004) FLORIDA (12/10/04) m Vanderbilt Shores Condominium Association Inc. sought to challenge a building permit issued to Aquaport LLC. The county approved Aquaport's site development plan for a 15-unit con- dominium, and issued a building permit. In its elevation, Aquaport's property was shaped like an inverted T, with the lower tier approximately 30-feet high and a middle column approximately 95-feet high. The project had side-yard set- backs extending approximately 30 feet from the exterior walls of the lower tier. Vanderbilt sued} arguing the' building permit was illegally granted because' the county's interpretation of the zoning ordinance was incorrect. The county claimed that the site plan, which consisted of side-yard setbacks of 30 feet for the tn:st tier, and 47 1/2 feet for the top tier, complied with the code's minimum of one-half of the building height as measured from each exterior wall. The court ruled in favor of the county. Vanderbilt appealed. DECI~ON:Affirmed. Although the county's interpretation of the ordinance was erroneous, Vanderbilt failed to exhaust, its administrative remedies. Great weight had to be given to the administrative construction of a statute by the officials charged with its administration. However, when an agency[s construction amounted to an unreasonable interpretation, it could not stand. The county's use of the phrase "as measured 'from each exterior wall" to refer to the measurement of building height? rather than the measurement of thc side yard, was contrary to the definition of building height set forth in the code. ' Further, by its argument, the county conceded'the top tier required a side yard, bu.t asserted it was sufficiently provided where the top tier was setback an additional 17 1/2 feet. This additional setback did not constitute a side yard, as that term was defined in the code, because it was occupied by the fin:st tier. The definition of yard required open space. This was reinforced by another provision requiring every part of every required yard to be open and unob- structed from 30 inches above the general ground level of the graded' lot up- ward to the sky. Ultimately, the county's longstanding interpretation of how to measure side yards for tiered or wedding-cake buildings was contrary to the code provi- sions regarding side yards. However, because Vanderbilt did not exhaust ad- ministrative remedies, the judgment was affm-ned. see also: Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, 642 So.2d 1081 (1994). 102 © 2005 Quintan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. 'For more information please call (617) 542-0048.