Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2003

Home

january 25-, 2003 Page 7 on the second proposed lot in the. future. The city's concerns were appropriate. Nicholas argued' the property could be efficiently served 'by municipal ser- vices because the property had been-approved for a septic system and a well for water consumption. However, Nicholas i~ored the.other municipal ser- vices that had to be provided, such as utility, safety, and emergencY. The city maintained there was no.evidence a proposed driveway could sup: port heavy vehicles such as fi.re or y!tility trucks. The only ac_cess was a 207fo0t strip of wetland alongside a lake. Wetland soil was usually not suitable for supporting a driveway upon which safety vehicles could go. To Support a fire truck, the driveway,woUld have had to be more substantial than a regUla/one. Although theland was suitable for a normal driveway, there was no-evidence'it could support heavier vehicles. The permit.denial Was appropriate. .. Citation: Nicholas Company Inc. v. City of Aurora Board of Zoning'Appeals; Court of Appeals of Ohio, lIth App. Dist., Portage County, No'. 2001-P-0155 (2002). see also: Duncan v. Middlefield, 49] N.E. 2d 692 (1986). se'e also.. Community Concerned Citizens Inc. v. Union Township Board of Zoning Appeals, 613 N.E. 2d 580 (1993). Appeals -- Can a city confer jurisdiction on a court? FLORIDA (12/11/02) The City of Sara·sota denied Pleasures 12[ Adult Video a permit to operate an adult-oriented business. Pleasures II sued. The city ordinance provided "Any person aggrieved by a decision ... relat- ' ing to an adult use permit may appeal to the circuit court." Pleasures II argued a municipal ordinance could not create circuit court jurisdiction to review ex- ecutive decisions. DECISION: Dismissed. The ordinance could not create circuit court jurisdiction. The permit denials were not quasi-judicial' acts reviewable by the courts. State law gave circuit court jurisdiction, over "appeals from f'mal' administra- tive orders of local government code enforcement boards." Such boards could be created "to impose administrative, f 'roes and other noncriminal penalties to provide an equitable, expeditious, effective, and inexpensive method of en- forcing any codes and ordinance." However, Pleasures II did not seek review of a city's ruling that it' had violated an ordinance. Rather, it challenged the city's refusal to issue an adult- use permit. The city had given jurisdiction to the circmr courts under local law. How- ever, if local laws could confer jurisdiction-to review the decisions-of specific cities or counties ~n the local circuit courts, the courts' jurisdiction would no[ be uniform throughout the state. 125