CITY OF LAKELAND, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA SOUTHERN COLLEGE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The City of Lakeland appeals the circuit court's reversal of its Zoning Board's decision classifying a college dormitory as residential rather than institutional use. The court held that the circuit court applied an incorrect standard of review by reweighing evidence rather than limiting its certiorari review to jurisdictional issues and departures from essential requirements of law.
When a city has not adopted the statutory appeal procedures under chapter 163, common law certiorari is the only judicial review available, and the circuit court's review is limited to determining (1) whether the zoning board had jurisdiction and (2) whether the proceedings departed from the essential requirements of law, not whether the board's decision was supported by competent evidence.
[1] Judicial review of a zoning board decision is limited to common law certiorari absent adoption of statutory zoning review provisions.
[2] A circuit court reviewing a zoning board decision via common law certiorari is limited to determining jurisdiction and whether the proceedings departed from the essential…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Absent adoption of chapter 163, there is no appeal from the decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustments. The only judicial review permitted is pursuant to common law certiorari.”
Establishes that without statutory adoption, common law certiorari is the exclusive remedy for zoning board review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlorida Southern College sought to construct a multi-story dormitory on property subject to zoning restrictions. The City's building inspector ruled t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Zoning Ordinance Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
The City of Lakeland appeals from the circuit court’s grant of certiorari to review a decision of the City’s Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals. We hold that the lower court applied an incorrect standard of review, and we reverse.
Appellee College, desiring to construct a multi-story dormitory, elicited a ruling from the City’s building inspector that the proposed dormitory would be subject to ordinary residential height restrictions. Appel-lee then appealed that unfavorable administrative determination to the Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals. After a hearing, the board upheld the determination of the building inspector. Appellee then filed a petition for writ of certiorari in circuit court, seeking again to overturn the residential determination. The circuit court found the decision of the zoning board not supported by competent evidence because incorrect definitions for the terms were used. The court found the use to be institutional rather than residential and reversed the zoning board.
The parties below do not argue that appellant City has adopted zoning review pursuant to the terms of section 163.-250, Florida Statutes (1979). Likewise, the submitted ordinances do not suggest that the City adopted these provisions. See Bell v. City of Sarasota, 371 So. 2d 525 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). Absent adoption of chapter 163, there is no appeal from the decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustments. The only judicial review permitted is pursuant to common law certiorari. See G. W. De velopment Corp. v. Village of North Palm Beach Zoning Board of Adjustment, 317 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). The circuit court, under such a petition for common law certiorari, was limited to a narrow determination of (1) jurisdiction below and (2) whether the proceedings below departed from the essential requirements of law. E. g., Gulf Cities Gas Corp. v. Cihak, 201 So. 2d 250 (Fla.2d DCA 1967).
There is no question of jurisdiction raised below. We fail to see how the board’s construction of the ordinance below could be a departure from the essential requirements of law. The applicable zoning code fails to clearly place the dormitory in either a residential category with a restricted height or in an institutional category with higher permitted height. That the zoning board performed its function to resolve the question by classifying the dormitory as residential does not require reversal on common law certiorari. The board considered provisions of other ordinances, listened to representatives of appellee, considered the decision of the building inspector, and made a decision. That decision is not clearly inconsistent with any law or ordinance. No departure from the essential requirements of law thus appears.
We REVERSE the grant of certiorari below and REMAND with instructions to reinstate the order of the Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
BOARDMAN, A. C. J. and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grady v. LEE Cnty., 458 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…trial judge’s determination. However, neither the special act nor the ordinance can affect the plaintiffs’ right to certiorari review by the circuit court, which is available to review zoning decisions. City of Lakeland v. Florida Southern College, 405 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). The time for invoking the certiorari jurisdiction of the circuit court is governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. § 59.081, Fla.Stat. (1983). Under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(c), a petition for common…
-
Paedae v. Escambia Cnty., 709 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…but rather in the nature of a denial of a development permit, pursuant to section 163.3164, Florida Statutes. See Board of County Comm’rs of Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469, 474-475 (Fla.1993); City of Lakeland v. Florida Southern College, 405 So. 2d 745, 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Recent cases from the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal demonstrate that the mere allegation of a wrongful denial of an owner’s right to use a piece of property in one particular manner through the denial of a d…
-
Boalt v. City Comm'rs, 408 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ur research has disclosed none, which even suggests that the language of Ordinance No. 8198 was ineffective to adopt Section 163.250. The holdings in Thompson v. City of Miami, 167 So. 2d 841 (Fla.1964); City of Lakeland v. Florida Southern College, 405 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Grefkowicz v. Metropolitan Dade County, 389 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); City of Apopka v. Orange County, 299 So. 2d 657, 660 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (rehearing), upon which the City relies for the proposition that the statutory p…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- G-W Dev. Corp. v. The Vill. OF N. Palm Beach Zoning Bd. OF Adjustment & Mader & Ryan, Inc., 317 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Bell v. City OF Sarasota, 371 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Gulf Cities GAS Corp. v. Cihak, 201 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)