Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Commission Meeting <br />April 11, 1005 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />By consensus, the Commission agreed to setthe dates forthe tentative Budget Workshop Sessions for August <br />15 and 16,2005 at 7:00 p.m. <br /> <br />VIII. Old Business <br /> <br />A. Public Hearinl! & Second Readinl! of Ordinance 05-1152 - Board of Adiustment Anneal Process <br /> <br />The City Clerk read ordinance 05-1152 by title as follows: <br /> <br />"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CASSELBERRY, FLORIDA, AMENDING <br />THE CASSELBERRY CODE OF ORDINANCES, PART III, UNIFIED LAND <br />DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS,ARTICLE IT, SECTION 1-2.1(D)(5),JUDICIAL <br />REVIEW OF DECISIONS AND ADDING SUBSECTION 6, PROCEDURE FOR <br />APPEALS; AMENDING SECTION 1-2.7(F)(5), JUDICIAL REVIEW OF <br />DECISIONS BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND ADDING SUBSECTION 6, <br />PROCEDURE FOR APPEALS, TO PROVIDE FOR APPEAL TO THE CITY <br />COMMISSION; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, CONFLICTS, <br />SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE." <br /> <br />Staff Renort: Ordinance 05-1152 provides for the appeal of decisions that are made by the Board of <br />Adjustment to the City Commission prior to going to the Seminole County Circuit Court. The Planning and <br />Zoning Commission referred the ordinance to the City commission with a favorable recommendation. The <br />ordinance was approved by the City Commission (3 - 2 vote) on first reading March 14, 2005. The required <br />legal advertisement ran in the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday, March 31, 2005 <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation: Approval of revisions to Ordinance 05-1152 on second reading. <br /> <br />Public Innut: None <br /> <br />MOTION: <br /> <br />Moved by Commissioner Linda Hart for approval Ordinance 05-1152, Board <br />of Adjustment Appeal Process, on second and final reading. The motion was <br />seconded by Commissioner Kathy Cook. <br /> <br />Discussion on the Motion: <br /> <br />Commissioner Doerner spoke in opposition to Ordinance 05-1152. She did not have a problem with the City <br />Commission reviewing a decision made by the Board of Adjustment if requested by a plaintiff, but had <br />serious concerns with a political entity hearing a case de novo. She indicated the process currently in place, <br />hearings by an appointed board, was working and opposed the revisions as proposed in Ordinance 05-1152. <br /> <br />Commission Hufford concurred with Commissioner Doerner, and she was also opposed to changing the <br />process that would allow appeals from the Board of Adjustment to come before the elected officials as <br />opposed to an appointed body. She opposed the revisions to Ordinance 05-1152. <br />