My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1980-03-20_PERMIT FILE - M1977315
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M1977315
>
1980-03-20_PERMIT FILE - M1977315
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/13/2023 4:49:45 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 11:33:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977315
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
3/20/1980
Doc Name
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
2. That the allegation of the Plaintiffs that the Defendant <br /> Board of County Commissioners exceeded its authority and <br /> acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner because of <br /> the fact that it formally adopted its resolution chang- <br /> ing the zone from "E" to "A" seven days after the public <br /> hearing, is without merit inasmuch as the Plaintiffs <br /> have been unable to produce any cases which support <br /> their conclusion that such a procedure is arbitrary and <br /> capricious, the Plaintiffs have shown no prejudice which <br /> has resulted from such a procedure, and the Court finds <br /> no inconsistency between the resolution which was adopted <br /> on April 12, 1978 and the oral statements made by the <br /> individual members of the Defendant Board at the pub- <br /> lic hearing of April 5, 1980. <br /> 3. That the Plaintiffs' assertion in their Brief that the <br /> Defendant Board was required to. find that the applicant <br /> for the rezoning prove that it is not possible to use <br /> and develop the property for any other use permitted <br /> in the existing zoning, is unsupported in the law except <br /> in the case where the applicant is asserting that the <br /> failure of the Commission to rezone resulted in the <br /> unconstitutional taking of property without just com- <br /> pensation. <br /> 4 . That the findings of the Defendant Board of County Com- <br /> missioners that the original zoning of "E" Estate Dis- <br /> trict on the subject property was faulty and the specific <br /> findings that when the property was originally zoned in <br /> 1961 it was part of a blanket zoning initiated by the <br /> County, that at the time of the original zoning in 1961 <br /> no consideration was given to the existence of commercial <br /> gravel deposits beneath the surface of the subject pro- <br /> perty, as well as the finding that the rezoning of the <br /> property is consistent with State policy and is of <br /> benefit to the public, were all supported by competent <br /> evidence. <br /> -2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.