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.