Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin meeting showed thai: Dyess, the county zoning administ.rator, had par- ticipated in the hearing. In January 2005, Gulf Highlands sent a letter to Dyess, requesting cOili'1rmation that the amended development was still valid. Dyess responded that it was in a letter he sent to Gulf High- lands in February. Hodges, whose interest in the development was unclear, filed an ap- peal to the zoning board of adjustment. Hodges claimed that Dyess---'-in his February letter-had made a decision that was appealable to the board. Gulf Highlands petitioned the court for a temporary restraining order against Hodges to prevent him from proceeding vvith his appeal and an injunction against the board to prevent it from being heard. Ultimately, the court found that Dyess' letter was not the "type of of- ficial decision or determination" over which the board had jurisdiction and it issued an order that permanently prevented the board from hear- ing the appeal. Hodges appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The regulation that Hodges relied upon in his appeal stated that: "The Board of Adjustment [should] hear and decide appeals where it [was] alleged there [was] an error in any order, requirement, decision or de- termination made by the Zoning Administrator or other administrative official in the enforcement of these zoning regulations." Hodges argued that Dyess' letter, which stated that the development amendment was still valid, was a determination that could be appealed. The court found, however, that the appropriate time for Hodges to appeal an action of the zoning administrator would have been after the November 2003 hearing. At that meeting, the record showed that Dyess had weighed in on the decision to approve the modU1J.cations to the de- velopment plan. Alternatively, Hodges argued that statements made in the letter about the time frame under which Gulf Highlands had to complete the ap- proved modification amounted to another administrative decision by Dyess. In the letter, Dyess cautioned Gulf Highlands to "be aware that the approval period began to run after the major modification of the [development] was approved [in November 2003]." The court found that determining when the tolling of this specific time limit began was not a duty of the zoning administrator and that Dyess was merely expressing his opinion. Regardless, because the ques- tion of whether the two-year period began after the modification was approved was not raised before the lower court, the appeals court could not hear this argument. Finally, Hodges argued that the finding of the lower court was im- proper because Gulf Highlands had not exhausted its admi.tJ.istrative remedies. Generally, a court would not decide on a zoning case in which the moving party had not exhausted its administrative options for re- 6 182