Ord 59-01ORDINANCE NO. 59.01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 2.4, "GENERAL
PROCEDURES", SECTION 2.4.4, "GENERAL
PROCEDURES PERTAINING TO APPROVAL OF LAND
USE AND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS",
SUBSECTION (F), "EXTENSIONS", BY ENACTING A NEW
PARAGRAPH (4), "LITIGATION PREVENTING
CONSTRUCTION", TO PROVIDE GUIDELINES FOR
EXTENSIONS WHEN LITIGATION IS FILED TO PREVENT
CONSTRUCTION; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A
GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Planning and Zoning Board
reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on November 19, 2001,
and voted to recommend that the changes be approved; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4)(c), the Planning and Zoning
Board, sitting as the Local Planning Agency, has determined that the change is consistent
with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Article 2.4, "General Procedures", Section 2.4.4, "General
Procedures Pertaining to Approval of Land Use and Development Applications",
Subsection (F), "Extensions", by Enacting a new Paragraph (4), "Litigation Preventing
Construction", to read as follows:
Section 2.4.4 General Procedures Pertaining to Approval of Land Use and
Development Applications.
(F) Extensions: Extensions may be granted to a previously approved
application listed under Subsection (E)(2) pursuant to the following:
(4) Litigation Preventing Construction: When a lawsuit is filed against a
developer, owner or applicant challenging the granting of a development approval by the City as
listed under Subsection 2.at.~t(D(2), an extension of the development approval shall be granted
without further review. The extension of time shall be effective until the litigation is concluded.
Provided, however, in no event shall the extension of time exceed seven (7) years from the initial
date of approval of the development application. If the litigation is not resolved within a
maximum of seven (7) years from the initial date of approval, the developer, owner or applicant
shall be required to follow Section 2.z}.at(F)(1). (2) or (3). The litigation shall be deemed to be
concluded after all appeals have been exhausted and a Final Order/Decision from the Court
having jurisdiction over the matter has been entered. This subsection does not apply to lawsuits
filed by the developer, owner or applicant against some other party, nor does it apply in any way to
allow the developer, owner or applicant to extend the 18 month deadline because of financial
issues.
However, in order to be eligible for an extension of time, the developer, owner or applicant
seeking an extension must send written notification and documentation that shows ongoing
litigation to the City within 30 days of the service of the suit. Except that, subsection 2.4.4(D(4)
shall also apply to those development applications that were approved by the City prior to the
adoption date of this ordinance, which approval is still valid in that the approval period has not
expired, but construction has not commenced as litigation over the approval of the development
application has prevented the commencement of construction. In order to qualify under this
exception provided for in this paragraph, the developer, owner or applicant must provide the
required notification/documentation to the City within 30 days of the adoption of this ordinance.
Section 2. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion
thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction
to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole
or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid.
Section 3. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and
the same are hereby repealed.
Section 4. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage
on second and final reading.
2 ORD. NO. 59-01
PASSED AND ~DOPT]~D in regular session
_~. day of ~ ..... ,200_£_.
ATTEST
City Clerk
First Reading~~__-~O_,__~_O.~
Second Rea ding~:_a~ga_~_~_OJ__
on second and final reading on this the
MAYOR
3 ORD. NO. 59-01
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
CITY MANAGER ~
AGENDA ITEM ]0 ~9 . REGULAR MEETING OF DEI~EMBER 4. 2001
ORDINANCE NO. 59-01 (AMENDMENT TO LDR SECTION 2.4.4(F)
(EXTENSIONS) ADDING PARAGRAPH (4) REGARDING LITIGATION,
WHICH PREVENTS CONSTRUCTION).
NOVEMBER 30, 2001
This is second reading and public heating for Ordinance No. 59-01 amending LDR Section 2.4.4 (F)
(extensions) adding Paragraph (4) regarding litigation which prevents construction. This amendment
establishes a provision for an extension of time for development with regard to pending litigation.
The extension of time shall be effective until the litigation is concluded. Provided, however, in no
event shall the extension of time exceed seven 07) years from the initial date of approval of the
development application. If the litigation is not resolved within a maximum of seven (7) years from
the initial date of approval, the developer, owner or applicant shall be required to follow Section 2.4.4
(F)(1), (2) or (3).
The Commission voted unanimously in favor of Ordinance No. 59-01 on first reading on November
20, 2001.
Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 59-01 on second and final reading, based upon the findings
and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board.
REF: Agrnemol 5.Ord.59.01.12.04.01.doc
TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGE~-''-'~-~
SUBJECT: MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2001
AMENDMENT TO LDR SECTION 2.4.4(F) (EXTENSIONS) ADDING PARAGRAPH
(4) REGARDING LITIGATION WHICH PREVENTS CONSTRUCTION.
LDR Section 2.4.4 relates to general procedures pertaining to land use and development approvals,
including expiration of approvals and approval extensions. Typically conditional use, site plans,
landscape plans, architectural elevations, and preliminary plat approvals have an expiration date of
18 months. During this time period a project must be established, which occurs by either (1)
construction of improvements representing 25% of the total cost of all improvements to be used in
developing the project; or (2) a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the use of the property
pursuant to the development approval.
If a project will not be established within the designated time frame, an extension of the development
approval may be granted pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.4(F) (copy attached). These circumstances
usually relate to difficulties obtaining financing.
The attached text amendment has been initiated to address situations where litigation prevents
construction from commencing on an approved project. The language has been modified to address
the comments made by the Commission at the November 13th workshop meeting. The proposed text
will allow an automatic extension without further review, until such time as the litigation is closed. The
amendment limits the automatic extension to no more than seven years from the date of the
development approval. This time frame seems reasonable as litigation sometimes takes many years,
during which time a developer would be prevented from constructing due to circumstances beyond
their control.
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5), approval of an LDR amendment must be based upon a finding
that the amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. This amendment is being initiated more for "housekeeping" purposes than to
fulfill any specific Comprehensive Plan policy. While the amendment does not specifically further the
Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, it is not inconsistent with them.
The Planning and Zoning Board will hold a public hearing on this item at their meeting November 19,
2001. Their recommendation will be provided at the City Commission meeting.
By motion, approve on first reading the amendment to LDR Section 2.4.4(F) Extensions adding
paragraph (4) establishing a provision relating to litigation preventing construction, based upon
findings with LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5), and setting a public hearing date on December 4, 2001.
Attachments: Ordinance by Others
ORDINANCE NO. 59-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 2.4, "GENERAL
PROCEDURES", SECTION 2.4.4, "GENERAL
PROCEDURES PERTAINING TO APPROVAL OF LAND
USE AND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS",
SUBSECTION (F), "EXTENSIONS", BY ENACTING A NEW
PARAGRAPH (4), "LITIGATION PREVENTING
CONSTRUCTION", TO PROVIDE GUIDELINES FOR
EXTENSIONS WHEN LITIGATION IS FILED TO PREVENT
CONSTRUCTION; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A
GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Planning and Zoning Board
reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on November 19, 2001,
and voted to recommend that the changes be approved; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4)(0, the Planning and Zoning
Board, sitting as the Local Planning Agency, has determined that the change is consistent
with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Article 2.4, "General Procedures", Section 2.4.4, "General
Procedures Pertaining to Approval of Land Use and Development Applications",
Subsection (F), "Extensions", by Enacting a new Paragraph (4), "Litigation Preventing
Construction", to read as follows:
Section 2.4.4 General Procedures Pertaining to Approval of Land Use and
Development Applications.
(F) Extensions: Extensions may be granted to a previously approved
application listed under Subsection (E)(2) pursuant to the following:
(4) Litigation Preventing Construction: When a lawsuit is filed against a
developer, owner or applicant challenging the granting of a development approval by the City as
listed under Subsection 2.z}.4(E)(2), an extension of the development approval shall be granted
without further review. The extension of time shall be effective until the litigation is concluded.
Provided, however, in no event shall the extension of time exceed seven (7) years from the initial
date of approval of the development application. If the litigation is not resolved within a
maximum of seven (7) years from the initial date of approval, the developer, owner or applicant
shall be required to follow Section 2.4.4(F)(1), (2) or (3). The litigation shall be deemed to be
concluded after all appeals have been exhausted and a Final Order/Decision from the Court
having jurisdiction over the matter has been entered. This subsection does not apply to lawsuits
filed by the developer, owner or applicant against some other party, nor does it apply in any way to
allow the developer, owner or applicant to extend the 18 month deadline because of financial
issues.
However, in order to be eligible for an extension of time, the developer, owner or applicant
seeking an extension must send written notification and documentation that shows ongoing
litigation to the City within 30 days of the service of the suit. Except that, subsection
shall also apply to those development applications that were approved by the City prior to the
adoption date of this ordinance, which approval is still valid in that the approval period has not
expired, but construction has not commenced as litigation over the approval of the development
application has prevented the commencement of construction. In order to qualify under this
exception provided for in this paragraph, the developer, owner or applicant must provide the
required notification/documentation to the City within 30 days of the adoption of this ordinance.
Section 2. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion
thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction
to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole
or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid.
Section 3. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and
the same are hereby repealed.
Section z~. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage
on second and final reading.
2 ORD. NO. 59-01
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the
..... day of ., 200___
ATTEST M A Y O R
City Clerk
First Reading
Second Reading.
3 ORD. NO. 59-01