Reso 2024-3770 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 5 of 6 structures designed to withstand water damage in future flood events." See Guidelines on Flood Adaption for Rehabilitating Structures p. 126 (emphasis added). No "[o]ther guidelines/policies/plans" have been adopted or approved by the City Commission. At the HPB Hearing, Owner presented testimony that the structure is located adjacent to the water's edge and is not elevated or otherwise compliant with current Florida Building Code standards. Owner also presented evidence that issuing a COA for demolition would allow construction of a new structure in a more flood -resilient method, making the Property more compatible with "surrounding properties." Accordingly, the Application should have been approved because the Application satisfied the City's applicable review criteria. D. The City's Zoning Code is Unconstitutionally Vague "In order for ordinances which provide decisional authority to be constitutional, they must have mandatory objective criteria to be followed when -making a decision." Friends of Great S., Inc. v. City of Hollywood ex rel. City Com'n, 964 So. 2d 827, 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citing Miami—Dade County v. Omnipoint Holdings, Inc., 811 So. 2d 767, 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), decision quashed on other grounds, 863 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2003) (holding that provision of Miami— Dade County Code on unusual uses was legally deficient because it lacked objective criteria for the County's zoning boards to use in their decision-making process); City of Miami v. Save Brickell Ave., Inc., 426 So. 2d 1100, 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) ("[I]f definite standards are not included in the ordinance, it must be deemed unconstitutional as an invalid delegation of legislative power to an administrative board."); ABC Liquors, Inc. v. City of Ocala, 366 So. 2d 146,149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) ("Any standards, criteria or requirements which are subject to whimsical or capricious application or unbridled discretion will not meet the test of constitutionality."); N. Bay Village v. Blackwell, 88 So. 2d 524, 526 (F1a.1956) ("An ordinance whereby the city council delegates to itself the arbitrary and unfettered authority to decide where and how a particular structure shall be built or where located without at the same time setting up reasonable standards which would be applicable alike to all property owners similarly conditioned, cannot be permitted to stand as a valid municipal enactment.")). Sufficient guidelines are required so that: 1. persons are able to determine their rights and duties; 2. the decisions recognizing such rights will not be left to arbitrary administrative determination; 3. all applicants will be treated equally; and 4. meaningful judicial review is available. Id. (emphasis added). Here, Owner originally sought to remove the individual historic site designation of the structure so it did not have to immediately seek demolition, however, the City does not have any criteria in its Code to remove historic designation and the criteria for listing a structure as historic does not include structural deterioration, flooding, or sea -level related issues. This lack of process is an unconstitutional infringement on Owner's due process rights. Shubin Law Group Shubinlawgroup.com I Tel (305) 381-6060 1 Fax (305) 381-9457 154 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION