HomeMy WebLinkAboutHandouts_Regular_Tab 13_06/09/2011 ������%��� ��
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1111 Hypoluxo Road, Suite 207
o��iii��.aiia� �� 2� ,�.�'-/�6.2
JOHN CORBETT T�LEPHONE (561) 586-7116
TRELA J. WHITE TELECOPIER (561) 586-96ll
BRADLEY W. BIGGS*^
KEITH W. DAVIS*
R. MAX LOHMAN
ABIGAIL FORRESTER JORANDBY � Board Certified in City, County and Loca1 Government Law
JENNIFER GARDNER ASHTON ^ State Certified County and Circuit Court Mediator
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Paterno, Vice Mayor Arena and Council members Brennan, Humpage &
Turnquest; Village Manager Couzzo
FROM: Keith W. Davis, Esq.
DATE: 3une 6, 2011
RE: Special Exception Use; Process and Legal Issues
Good Shepherd Episcopal Church has applied for a Special Exception Use, which
application will be heard by the Village Council on June 9, 2011. This Memorandum will briefly
outline the special exception process as well as the legal issues relevant to that process.
Special exceptions are uses which although are allowed to exist and operate, ha�e unique
characteristics and require case-by-case analysis of their impacts on neighboring areas and
Village infrastructure. Sec. 78-361.
In order for the Good Shepherd special exception use to exist and operate, the Village
Council must find that the proposed use complies with the seven (7) requirements of Sec. 78-
3b2. In addition, the Village Council must find that the proposed special exception use has made
adequate provision for the twelve (12) factors set forth in Sec. 78-363. The Staff Report
prepared by the Community Development Department discusses these requirements and factors
in more detail.
Special exception applications are heard by the Village Council at a quasi judicial public
hearing. It is the burden of the applicant to establish, through the presentation of competent,
1
substantial evidence, that they have met each of the above referenced seven (7) requirements and
sufficiently provided for each of the above referenced twelve (12) factors. Competent,
substantial evidence can be in the form of sworn testimony, the development application as
required by Sec. 78-368, or other documents and materials presented to the Village Council at
the public hearing.
Once the applicant has provided competent, substantial evidence that the proposed
special exception use camplies with the above referenced criteria (7 requirements and 12
factors), the burden shifts to the Village to esta.blish that the criteria have not been met and that
granting the special exception would be adverse to the public interest in order to properly deny
the request. The Village is likewise required to provide competent, substantial evidence at the
public heaxing in order to meet this burden. Such evidence can come from sworn testimony or
other docuxnents and materials presented to the Village Council at the public hearing. Redner v.
City Council o, f'City of'Tampa, 827 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 2" DCA 20Q2).
Competent substantial evidence has been defined by the Florida Supreme Court as
evidence that is sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept it as
adequate to support the conclusion reached. DeGroot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912, 916 (Fla. 1957).
In simple terms, competent, substantial evidence amounts to any valid reason supported by the
record. Orange County v. Butler, 877 So.2d 810, 813 (Fla. Sth DCA 2004).
Based on the competent, substantial evidence presented at the public hearing, the Village
Council may grant the request, deny the request or grant the request with the imposition of
special conditions designed to protect the surrounding property and neighborhood or the overall
public health, safety and welfare of the Village. Sec. 78-364. In the event that the request is
denied, the Village Council must state the reasons for the denial by way of explaining which
requirement(s) or factor(s) have not been met. Sec. 78-365. A failure to make such findings is
considered a departure from the essential requirements of law. Redner v. City Council of City of
Tampa, 827 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 2" DCA 2002). Following a denial, the applicant is foreclosed
from re-applying for twelve (12) months from the date of such action. Sec. 78-366.
2