HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Steve Wernick•
•
West Reporter Image (PDF
467 So.2d 468, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 996
I (Ase. i v1 -r
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fifth District.
CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, Appellant,
V.
Cuberta MOSHER, Appellee.
No. 83-1728.
April 18, 1985.
City appealed from a summary final judgment of the Circuit Court, Brevard County, Edward M.
Jackson, J., declaring an amendment to its zoning ordinance void as applied to particular landowner's
property. The District Court of Appeal, Frank D. Upchurch, Jr., J., held that city's action in amending
its zoning ordinance to change zoning of land from medium density residential district to single family
residential was invalid, where landowner did not receive notice as required by zoning ordinance in
effect at the time, reclassification of land was not in accordance with comprehensive land use plan
adopted by city, and there was no relation whatever between new classification and general welfare
of the community.
Affirmed.
Cowart, J., concurred specially with opinion.
w
Q
\V)
West Headnotes
O
0
U KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
O
t---414 Zoning and Planning
0
U
0
..---,-414111 Modification or Amendment
w
w
:- 414III(A) In General
4141<159 k. Comprehensive Plan. Most Cited Cases
(�I,
-:414 Zoning and Planning J KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
----�
. -414III Modification or Amendment
00
m
`"""'
�•'
.-, 414III B Manner of Modifying or Amending
:-4141<194 Notice and Hearing
"0
0
c=-4141<195 k. Sufficiency of Notice and Publication. Most Cited Cases
City's action in amending its zoning ordinance to change zoning of land from medium density
residential district to single family residential was invalid, where landowner did not receive notice as
required by zoning ordinance in effect at the time, reclassification of land was not in accordance with
comprehensive land use plan adopted by city, and there was no relation whatever between new
classification and general welfare of the community.
*469 Joseph W. Scott, Cape Canaveral, for appellant.
Jere E. Lober, and Lewis R. Pearce, Merritt Island, for appellee.
•FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
The City of Cape Canaveral appeals from a summary final judgment declaring an amendment to its
zoning ordinance void as applied to Mosher's property.
0?- 00/vozC -SU6Mi ttLI- 33teVC LUCrr, 1
https://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?vc=2.0&findtype=Y&sy=Split&rs=W... 6/15/2009
Briefly stated, Mosher sought a declaratory judgment holding that the city's action in amending its
0 zoning ordinance to change the zoning of land along Long Point Road, which includes her property,
from R-3 (a medium density residential district) to R-1 (single family residential) in 1983 was invalid.
The initial zoning classification of R-3 complied with the comprehensive land use plan adopted by the
city in 1980. Mosher alleged, inter alia, that she was not given written notice of the proposed change
as required, that the amendment was not in accord with the comprehensive plan, and that no
relationship existed between the re -zoning of the property and the general welfare of the community.
The city answered and admitted all the operative facts of the complaint, denying only that Mosher
was entitled to relief.
Mosher moved for summary judgment on the above grounds and the trial court granted her
motion and ruled that the amendment is void. We affirm.
Our supreme court, in rejecting any estoppel argument to enforcement of a zoning amendment,
has said that "All one who plans to use his property in accordance with existing zoning regulations is
entitled to assume is that such regulations will not be altered to his detriment unless the change
bears a substantial relation to the health, morals, welfare, or safety of the public." City of Miami
Beach v. 8701 Collins Ave. Inc., 77 So.2d 428, 430 (Fla. 1954).
Here the following facts were established by admission of the city in its answer:
1. The re -zoned strip, including Mosher's land, was carved out of an existing R-3 zone.
2. Mosher did not receive notice as required by the zoning ordinance in effect at the time.
3. The new classification of Mosher's land was not in accordance with the comprehensive land use
plan adopted by the city under the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.
4. There was no relation whatever between the present (re -zoned) classification and the general
welfare of the community.
There were no facts pleaded or demonstrated by affidavit or otherwise that the change bore a
substantial relation to the health, morals, welfare, or safety of the public. The court was correct in
concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact and in granting summary final judgment.FN'
FN1. We take issue with Judge Cowart's statement in his concurrence that the majority
opinion is based on a point of law different than that on which the trial court's decision
was based. The trial court correctly found first that there was no genuine issue of fact
v t C
(see footnote two of the concurring opinion). At that point, appellee was entitled to
3:% V
judgment as a matter of law. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c). Any further findings of fact or
a
conclusions of law by the trial court then became superfluous and any additional
�� A' -
discussions or analysis by this court became unnecessary and meaningless.
= v C V
OCOd''`
AFFIRMED.
C c ca
8—
*470 DAUKSCH, J., concurs.
C_
COWART, J., concurs specially with opinion.
E CL
CO
COWART, Judge, concurring specially:
As I understand the majority opinion I fully concur in it.FN I write specially because an appellate
court should review and uphold a trial court decision on the point of law on which that decision was
made unless that basis is erroneous but the decision can be upheld on some other point of law. In
this case the trial court based its decision on a point of law different from that on which the majority
opinion is based and the trial court is correct as to the point of law on which it based its decision FN2
https://web2.westlaw. com/resultldocumenttext.aspx?vr=2.0&findtype=Y&sv=Split&rs=W... 6/15/2009
_ry vv./.0 -rvo raga -) vl -r
and should be affirmed on that basis.
FN1. I understand the majority opinion to apply a principle of law to the effect that a
zoning change initiated by a zoning authority should be voided at the behest of the
landowner unless the zoning authority establishes, as a matter of fact and to the
satisfaction of the trial court, that the change bears a substantial relationship to the
health, morals, welfare or safety of the public.
FN2. The relevant portions of the appealed summary final judgment are as follows: 1.
[finds no genuine issue of fact]2. [finds plaintiff is owner]3. [finds zoning prior to change
to be R-3 which zoning was consistent with the city's comprehensive land use plan]"4.
That insofar as it pertains to Plaintiffs said real property, the zoning ordinance adopted
by the Defendant on February 15, 1983, attempting to change the zoning classification of
Plaintiffs said real property from R3 to R-1 was inconsistent with the land use element of
said comprehensive plan of the Defendant and said zoning change on February 15, 1983,
was not an amendment to the land use element of said comprehensive plan adopted in
accordance with the requirements pertaining to same set forth in the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975' (Section 163.3161, et seq., Florida Statutes).5.
that said zoning change relating to the Plaintiffs property from R-3 to R-1 is invalid,
andPlaintiffs property is and remains zoned R-3."
As presented by the parties before the trial court and on appeal this case involves a question of
whether the rezoning of a parcel of land was consistent with the comprehensive land use (zoning)
plan of the zoning authority.
As is necessary for valid zoning and as required by statute FN3 appellant city adopted a
comprehensive land use (zoning) plan designating a large zone, including appellee's land, for medium
density residential use. Later, the city rezoned some land, including appellee -owner's land, from R-3,
0 a medium density residential classification permitting moderate multiple family rental use, to R-1, a
more restrictive classification permitting less intensive use and allowing only single dwelling units. The
owner sought relief from the rezoning by declaratory judgment and after a hearing on the owner's
motion for a summary judgment, the trial court held the rezoning was inconsistent with the city's
comprehensive zoning plan and voided it. The city appeals and argues that any zoning that is more
restrictive or less intensive than that provided by a comprehensive plan is "consistent" with that
plan. �� C Y
FN3. See, § 163.3184, Fla.Stat. (1983).
FN4. The city's argument is based upon an early zoning concept that the purpose of
zoning was to protect the property in a zone from less desirable uses than that
specifically permitted. This concept is called the "cumulative" or "pyramid" style of
zoning. Under this concept any use considered by the zoning authority to be more
desirable (i.e. more restrictive or less intensive use), was considered to be "compatible"
and "consistent" with any less desirable (less restrictive or more dense) zoning and was
permitted in any area zoned for any less desirable use. This idea is now generally
considered poor planning and zoning and the better practice is to restrict each different
use and each different intensity to its own zone although many zoning ordinances still
permit "pyramiding" to some extent. See 1 Rathkoff, The Law of Zoning and Planning, §
1.01 (4th Ed. 1984). One case, Marracci v. City of Scappoose, 552 P.2d 552
(Or.App.1976) agrees with the city's argument and that case should not be followed.
CL U
g U
I
C C Q
�N L
E
a.
N
*471 Section 163.31940, Florida Statutes, defines the legal status of a comprehensive zoning
,plan to be such that after its adoption all land development regulations enacted or amended must be
consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. This requirement is itself consistent with the theory,
purpose and validity of zoning.FN5 The word "consistent" implies the idea or existence of some type or
form of model, standard, guideline, point, mark or measure as a norm and a comparison of items or
https:Hweb2.westlaw.comlresult/documenttext.aspx?vr=2.0&findtype=Y&sv=Split&rs=W... 6/15/2009
I+u r 00./Lu L+oo
rage 4 014
actions against that norm. Consistency is the fundamental relation between the norm and the
compared item. If the compared item is in accordance with, or in agreement with, or within the
•parameters specified, or exemplified, by the norm, it is "consistent" with it but if the compared item
deviates or departs in any direction or degree from the parameters of the norm, the compared item
or action is not "consistent" with the norm.
FN5. See 1 E. Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice § 5-2 (4th Ed. 1978).
A comprehensive land use plan legislatively sets a zoning norm for each zone. Under Section
163.3194(1) Fla.Stat., after adoption of such a plan, zoning changes, should be made only when
existing zoning is inconsistent with the plan and then only in the direction of making the zoning more
consistent with the plan; otherwise the plan should be legislatively amended as to the area of the
entire zone or as to the uses permitted within the entire zone. This is what the trial court held and
this is the only way to (1) regulate and maintain land use by zones; (2) make individual zoning
changes, which are essentially executive action, conform to a legislated plan and (3) avoid arbitrary
"spot zoning" change that permits the use of individual parcels to depart from a plan.
Because of the city's rezoning of the owner's land to a more restrictive classification permitting
less intensive use than the use provided for in its comprehensive land use (zoning) plan was
inconsistent with its plan and contrary to the dictates of Section 163.3194(1), Florida Statutes, the
trial court was correct in voiding the rezoning and should be affirmed on that basis.
Fla.App. 5 Dist.,1985.
City of Cape Canaveral v. Mosher
467 So.2d 468, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 996
END OF DOCUMENT
0 T West Reporter Image (PDF)
Adobe Reader is required to view PDF images.
Get 4
A[?`Jaۥ OfhClfli
(c) 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
SUBMITTED INTO THE
i
PUBLIC RECORD FOS'
ITEMrz.ig ON&%zr-ar
httns://web2.westl aw. com/resul t/documenttext_asnx?vr=2.0&fi n dtvne=Y&.sv=4nl i t&rs=W ... 6/1.5/7009