Loading...
03-05-1942 Special MeetingMINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE COUNCIL MARCH 5, 1942. The Miami Shores Village Council held a special meeting on March 5, 1942, with the four members present, as were the Village Manager and Village Attorney. The first business to carne before the Council was the election of a fifth member to the Village Council. The question as to whether or not a motion for nomination had to be seconded was raised, and the Attorney was of the opinion that a nomination was not a motion and therefore he did not think a second was required. Mr. Arnold nominated Marshall G. Luce, of the Electrical Equip- ment Company. Mr. Earnest then gave the chair to Mr. Stockdell and seconded the nomination, and upon being put to a vote the result was 2 to 2, with Mr. Childress and Mr. Stockdell dissenting. Mr. Arnold then nominated Mr. Jas. G. Garner, Vice -President of the Little River Bank and Trust Company, and said nomination was seconded by Mr. Earnest. Upon being put to a vote the result was 2 to 2 with Mr. Childress and Mr. Stockdell dissenting. Mr. Arnold nominated Mr. John G. Thompson of Smather, Thompson and Maxwell and said nomination was seconded by Mr. Earnest. Upon being put to a vote the result was 2 to 2, with Mr. Childress and Mr. Stock - dell dissenting. Mr. Childress then said that he was not going to vote for any- body until he had time tothink the matter over and give it deep con- sideration. Mr. Arnold then moved that the meeting be adjourned, but there was no second. Upnn motion of Mr. Arnold, seconded by Mr. Earnest, Mr. Aufford was nominated and upon being put to a vote the result was 2 to 2 with .ir. Childress and ar. Stockdell dissenting. 3/5/42 Page 2 The matter of the incinerator was then presented, and the Attorney submitted the following report: "I am ready to express my opinion about the matter, and have been ready for some time. I do not recommend that you undertake any litigation with respect to the present property. In my opinion you. would have to do one thing or the other in instituting any litigation: You would have to declare the existing statutes invalid, or you would have to establish that the present zoning classification of the property is unreasonable. I do not think you will find anybody that will express the opinion that the statutes are invalid. The zoning is recognized and the statutes provided for are recognized. With respect to classification - it would be a great burden, in my opinion, for the Village to prove that is is unreasonable. As you know, at the present time the property is classified as residential and for agricultural purposes. You would have to have it declared classified for industrial purposes in order to build an incinerator. The property out there is surrounded, practically speaking, with subdivisions for residential purposes. There is a number of residences within close proximity of the property at the present time, and it is my opinion that the court would not, under these circum- stances, set aside 47 acres for industrial purposes as an industrial zone right in the center of residential property. There is also an additional problem to consider. It does not go so much with the immediate legal point, but something that I think should not be overlooked. There is in,the books already one decided case with respect to a very similar situation such as we have here. It was decided last year in the supreme court. There was an application made before the County Commissioners from a concern for an animal reduction plant. The County Commissioners turned it down. The Board 3/5/42 Page 3 of Adjustment, upon appeal, reversed the County Commissioners' decision and granted the permit - as we were not granted one. The erection of the plant was started. About $1800.00 had been spent in the con- struction when the neighboring property owners, residents, brought a suit for an injunction to the circuit court on the grounds that it would be a nuisance. The injuction was granted in the lower court and appeal taken. The matter was sustained in the supreme court and the injunction made permanent. From what Ir have heard in the discussion on the subject I think we can clearly expect in the event we should be successful in getting a permit to build the incinerator plant on this land that we could then expect, either immediately or possibly after construction has been completed and operation begun, .a suit for an injunction to abate the operation. If that should happen, and we should lose that case, we would then be in a position of having an incinerator we could not use". A letter concerning the Attorney's recommendations and opinion is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Mr. DeLucca appeared before theCouncil, representing Mr. Cannon, who has offered to sell theVillage 79 acres of land and loan the money to erect an incinerator on the land, and said that he would have the property for 60 days starting the 27th of February, and stated that he would like some sort of an answer on the proposition. He said that he would make application for a permit for said incinerator, and would wort with the Council to arrange something within the next 60 days. He also stated that, of course, there would have to be an election of the people on the matter to assure an obligation on the part of the Village. Mr. Childress then asked the Mayor if his Incinerator Committee might work on the matter and give him a definite report of their findings and recommendations at the next regular monthly meeting of the Council 3/5/42 Page 4 on Tuesday, March 10, 1942. The Committee would try to have some report before the Council at that time. This was unanimously approved by the Council - to let that committee go ahead and make their recommendations. After which the meeting was adjourned. `_" 11age'-Manager d Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: