WE WON TODAY - SEE YOU IN COURT

Hi all,

After more than 4 hours of witnesses and testimony in the Issac Feder v Palm Beach County Code Enforcement case, Special Magistrate Carolyn Ansay decided that Mr. Feder was indeed using his Condominium unit in Golf's Edge for other than residential use. As a result, Mr. Feder was given 30 days to "come into compliance", or sustain a fine of $100.00 per day!

The evidence of violation was rather overwhelming as this long drama played out before over 400 Century Village residents, in attendance at the Vista Center main hearing room, and overflow chambers with video feeds.

The attorney for Mr. Feder, Esther Zaretsky Esq. made a powerful closing argument which was totally ignored by the finder of fact on the bench.

The key subtext to the "other than residential use" finding; is that the use in question is for prayer meetings.

Ms, Zaretsky eloquently invoked the Religious Land Use and  Institutionalized Persons Act RLUIPA, which states in part:
.................................................................................

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.


SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF LAND USE AS RELIGIOUS EXERCISE.


(a) SUBSTANTIAL BURDENS-


(1) GENERAL RULE- No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution--
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and


(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
.......................................................................
Ms. Zaretsky passionately proclaimed "What compelling Government interest is impacted by dropping cigarettes butts on the ground" said act described by a witness as being ascribed to the prayer meeting congregants.

So, as the title of this Post suggests, we did indeed win today; but this case may be appealed, and I fear that todays decision will be reversed.

So, how should one proceed in such cases of "Other than Residential Use"? Look to Article XIII ( Use and Occupancy), or in the case of Golf's Edge, Article X, of your Declaration of Condominium; in other words, Enforce your Documents, and take violaters to Arbitration or Court.
................................................................

X

USE RESTRICTIONS

The use of the condominium property shall be in accordance with the following provisions as long as the condominium exists and the apartment building or buildings in useful condition exist upon the land.

A. Apartments. Each of the units shall be occupied only by a family, it’s servants and guests as a residence and for no other purpose. Except as reserved to the developer, no dwelling unit may be divided or sub-divided into a smaller unit nor any portion sold or otherwise transferred Without first amending this Declaration to show the changes in the units being effected..........

....................................................................................

Undoubtedly we will hear more on this case!

Dave Israel