Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Miguel Diaz de la Portilla4008n2d|Uj| (Cite as: 408Sw.2d 1051) Submitted into the public record inconnection vvilth items PZ'24&PZ.3Gon 10-28'10 Priscilla A.Thompson City Clerk C District Court n[Appeal m[Florida, Second District. OmbC0NETTA, &p[e||uut. V. CITY OF8ARASOT&, Appellee. Mo.W0'2176. July i5,\9Ri Petitioner appealed from an order of the Circuit Court, Sarasota Cmunty, Robert EHensley, Lwhich denied her petition for certiorari to review a decision of city commission denying her application for a special exception to build a guest house on her prop- erty. The District Court of Appeal, Boardman, ]., held that denial of special exception u||n*iug peti- tioner to build guest house on her property, which was based on objections of ocv*/a| residents which did not bear on any nythe relevant criteria set ;/nh in applicable section o[city zoning code, was improper. Reversed and remanded. WeotHeadnotes 4l4Zoning and Planning 4|4>{Judicial Review orRelief 4|4X(C)Scope nfReview 414)((C)\ In General 414k\627 Arbitrary, Capricious, or Unreasonable Action 414k|6]( k. Decisions of boards or officers in general. Most Cited Cuvco (Formerly 4|4k6|O) Courts will not interfere with administrative deci- sions ofzoning authorities unless such decisions are arbitrary, discriminatory, orunreasonable. 4|4Zoning and Planning 4141X Variances and Exceptions 4141>((A) In General 4 l4k 1489 Architectural and Structural De- Page ! 414N495 k Family or multiple dwell- ings. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 4|4k50214\4k502) Denial of special exception allowing applicant to build guest house on her property, which was based on objections of several rcoidrmo which did not bear unany o[the relevant criteria xcv forth in applicable section of city zoning code, was improper. °1051 Stanley Hendricks of Dent, POu&uer. Rosin & 8uben.Sarasota, for appellant. Robert M.Foumier ofHereford, Taylor &Stems, Sarasota, for appellee. 8O&RDMAN, Judge. DnrioCoocttu petitioner in the circuit court, uppcu|o the dc,du| of her pcdhno for certiorari to review u decision of the Su/uootu City Commission denying her application for o opedu| exception to build u guest house on her property. We reverse, Appellant petitioned appellee City of Sarasota for a special exception allowing her to build a guest house on her property. Appellant also furnished the city with u letter stating that the guest house would not be rented, would be used by members of her family only, would not have any cooking ^1052 8z||ihex` would not have useparate utility meter, and would be bvUi in accordance with all applicable city ordi- nances, This letter constituted a promise oycompli- ance with each mquin,vmm of the ordinance for the issuance o[uspecial exception. On January 9. 1980 the city Planning Board m4, heard attorney John Dent speak on behalf u[uppu|' |ant'o request, and heard several persons speak against the granting of the requested special excep- tion. A decision was deferred until the January 23. 1980 meeting, uLwhich time counsel for appellant and two ofthe people who had previously spoken against the special exception appeared. In addition, |cttoo in opposition from several residents of the area were brought to the board's attention. OcZ0\DThomson Reuters. No Claim mOrig. US Gov. Works. 4O0So2d 1051 Submitted into the public record |nconnection with items PZ.24&9Z.3Sqn 10-28'10 Priscilla A.Thompson City Clerk Many uythose opposed touspecial exception for appellant gave noreason for their objections. One o[ the major reasons for objection that was stated was that appc||unt'oguest house would not conform tothe rest oythe area. This was because the structure was ,n be raised on stilts to twelve feet above ground level. This aspect ofthe design was not ofuppe||ant'oown choosing, hn"*ovcc it was mandated by the flood plan zoning currently in effect. Mmoeuver, there was at least one other parcel of property in the neighbor- hood that contained u raised structure. The other ma- jor objection involved the concern that despite uppc|' |unt'o moumoceo that she would not rent her guest house, she might later sell her property, and the new owner might rent the guest house. Both umember o[ the Planning Board and City Manager Thompson noted that the proscription against renting guest houses was difficult to enforce. Bnvvcvcr, at no time was there any question o[uppd|unt'o good faith in regard \oher promise not tnrent her guest house. The board ultimately recommended denial o[the spe- cial exception, and the matter came hc0orc the City Commission on April Z|. 1980. The City Commis- sion denied the special exception on the basis of the Planning Board's recommendation. Appellant then filed a petition for certiorari with the circuit court, seeking review of the City Commission's decision. The circuit court denied the petition, and this appeal followed timely. 111121|tio well settled that the courts will not inter- fere with administrative decisions ofzoning authori- ties unless such decisions are arbitrary, discrimina- tory, or umnuoonuh|r. City of Nup|co v. Central Plaza of Naples, Inc., 303 Sn2d 423 (Hu.2d DCA 1974). However, (he only criteria upon which the Planning Board or the City Commission could rely in passing upon uppe|lam's special exception request were those spelled out in the pertinent ordinance. North Bay Village v. Blackwell, 88 8o2d 524 (F|u.|95h);City n[Naples x Central Plaza o(Naples, Inc., supra. They nevertheless decided the matter on the basis of the objections ofseveral residents, none o[which objections bears nnany oythe relevant crite- ria set Korth in section 43'12(8) (f), the applicable section n[the city zoning code. Appellant complied with the terms of the ordi- nance. City Commission then had the burden ofestablishing that the use she proposed would adversely affect the public imcrcoL Rural New Town, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 315 3n2d 478 (Ha.4Nh DC& 1975). The court there noted: There is u distinction between seeking rezoning and socking u special exception; each involves somewhat different considerations. In rczoo(ng, the burden is upon the applicant to c|rudy cotuh|ioh such right (as heoinubnvn indicated). |nthe case of u special cxception, where the applicant has other- wise complied with those conditions set forth in the zoning code, the burden is upon the zoning author- ity to demonstrate by competent substantial evi- dence that the special exception is udvc,oc in the public interest. Ynk|nyonZoning, vol. 2' p. 124. A special rucrphou is u permitted use to which the applicant is entitled unless the zoning authority de- termines according N the standards in the zoning ordinance that °1053 such use *muN adversely af- fect 6d. a$48O. In the instant cuoc neither the Planning Board nor the City Commission met their burden. Their decision appears to be based primarily on the sentiments of other residents n[Siesta Key as to whether the special exception should be granted, It uomun1ud to no more than apopularity poll n[the neighborhood. {nCity of Apopka v.Orange County, 2PV8uZd657, 659-66(Fla4,h DCA 1974), the court quoted with approval from 3Anderson, American Law ofZoning, s 15.27 as follows: "The objections ofolarge number ofresidents o/ the affected neighborhood are not usound basis for the denial of permit. The quasi-judicial function of board of adjustment must be exercised on the basis o[the facts adduced; numerous objections by adjoining landowners may not properly be given even u cumulative effect. While the facto disclosed by objecting neighbors should be coosidcrod, the courts have said that: ^& mere poll of the neighboring landowners does not serve to assist the board in determining whether the exception applied for is c000io^cn| with the public convenience o, *c|[mo or 0ZD|DThomson Reuters. NoClaim toOrig. USGov. Works. ' 400So2d 1051 whether hwill tend Wdevaluate the neighboring property.' " The denial m[the special exception was based solely on (u) its unpopularity with some Siesta Key resi- dents and(b)the conjecture that ugrantee ofappel- lant might thereafter violate the ordinance coupled with the recognition that the proscription against rent- ing guest houses is difficult to enforce. Aatothe en- forcement prvh|om, the remedy would simply be to amend the ordinance to exclude special exceptions for guest h*uoca. as City Manager Thompson rec- ommended to the commission at the hearing. Lastly, the city urges that the special exception should bedenied because the structure would not be compatible and in harmony with the neighborhood. This contention is without merit because undo the present zoning ordinance any new buildings con- structed in the area *nuN he required to be erected twelve feet above ground |opd. There being no proper basis for the City Commis- sion's denial of the special exception requested by appellant., we REVERSE the circuit court'sdenial uf uppeikm(o petition for writ of certiorari and RE- MAND with directions togrant the writ. HOB80N,Acting C.Land GBJMRS J_coocur. Pkn,App` 1981. Coneuuv.City ofSarasota 4008o2d1051 END OF DOCUMENT Submitted into the public record inconnection with items PZ.24&PZ.25nn 10'28-10 Priscilla A.Thompson City Clerk 0 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.