SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Title
Schedule an Attorney-Client session at 5:00 p.m. on September 4, 2014, to discuss the settlement offer received in the case of Bair v. City.
Body
SUMMARY:
On or about April 2001, the Plaintiffs submitted a building application to Planning and Development to remodel their property in Island Estates. Because the property is below the 100-year flood elevation and is located in a "V" flood zone, the Community Development Code requires any "substantial improvements" to existing structures to comply with the flood damage-resistance provisions, including that the structure be elevated. "Substantial Improvement" is defined as the reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition or other improvement of a structure during a one-year period, the cost of which
equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the start of the construction of the improvement.
The Building Official required the Plaintiffs to submit a non-substantial improvement application and related materials demonstrating that the work was not a substantial improvement. The City initially issued a building permit in July 2011 and Plaintiffs began work in August of that year. The City then placed a Stop Work Order on the property because Building determined that in fact the work constituted a substantial improvement. The Plaintiffs appealed this determination to the Building/Flood Board of Adjustment and Appeals; the Board ruled in favor of the City. The Plaintiffs did not further appeal the Board's decision to Circuit Court, but instead began the process, which resulted in the filing of this lawsuit.
The Plaintiffs' suit has two counts, one under the Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act and a second for Equitable Estoppel. The Plaintiffs claim that they have lost market value on their property due to their partial demolition of the structure in alleged reliance on the issuance of the permit and due to their alleged inability to complete the renovations.
The City has pleaded a number of defenses to the action. The Plaintiff has recently made a settlement offer to the City, and the City Attorney is requesting an attorney-client session to discuss this settlement offer.
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
USE OF RESERVE FUNDS: