JAMES H. NANCE, PETITIONER,
v.
TOWN OF INDIALANTIC, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida Supreme Court held that zoning variance applicants must demonstrate unique hardship specific to their parcel, not shared by other property owners, and that the proper standard of review is whether competent substantial evidence supports the lower tribunal's findings.
A prerequisite to granting a hardship zoning variance is the presence of an exceptional and unique hardship to the individual landowner, unique to that parcel and not shared by other property owners in the area.
[1] The 'fairly debatable' test applies to review of legislative-type zoning enactments, while variance applicants must demonstrate unique hardship specific to their parcel t…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[a] prerequisite to the granting of a hardship zoning variance is the presence of an exceptional and unique hardship to the individual landowner, unique to that parcel and not shared by other property owners in the area.”
District court's statement of the standard for zoning variance approval
Nance sought a zoning variance from the Town of Indialantic. The district court reviewed the variance decision and established the standard for evalua…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence Standard Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
McDONALD, Justice.
We review Town of Indialantic v. Nance, 400 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), because of conflict with Allstate Mortgage Corp. v. City of Miami Beach, 308 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 317 So. 2d 763 (Fla.1975). In a comprehensive and articulate opinion the district court stated in the instant case that “[a] prerequisite to the granting of a hardship zoning variance is the presence of an exceptional and unique hardship to the individual landowner, unique to that parcel and not shared by other property owners in the area.” 400 So. 2d at 40. The court distinguished the “fairly debatable” test of reviewing zoning decisions from the “unique hardship” burden of proof for variances and held that “the proper standard of review in a zoning variance case is whether the lower tribunal had before it competent substantial evidence to support its finding. DeGroot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla.1957).” Id. (emphasis in original, footnote omitted). The district court has properly analyzed the facts and applied appropriate precedent, and we approve that court’s opinion and adopt it as our own. In so doing, we emphasize that the “fairly debatable” test should be used to review legislative-type zoning enactments, while a variance seeker must demonstrate a “unique hardship” in order to qualify for a variance. We disapprove Allstate Mortgage Corp. to the extent of conflict with the instant opinion.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C. J., and BOYD, OVER-TON, SUNDBERG and EHRLICH, JJ, concur. ADKINS, J, dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (30 total)
-
Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Brevard Cnty. v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993)…County Comm’rs, 578 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA1991). However, in deference to the policy-making function of a board when acting in a legislative capacity, its actions will be sustained as long as they are fairly debatable. Nance v. Town of Indialantic, 419 So. 2d 1041 (Fla.1982). On the other hand, the rulings of a board acting in its quasi-judicial capacity are subject to review by certiorari and will be upheld only if they are supported by substantial competent evidence. De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fl…
-
Thompson v. Planning Comm'n OF the City OF Jacksonville, 464 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…ission could not and did not find unnecessary and undue hardship in considering the owners’ application. The necessity of proving unnecessary hardship in order to obtain a variance is well settled in Florida. See e.g., Nance v. Town of Indialantic, 419 So. 2d 1041 (Fla.1982); Ft. Lauderdale Board of Adjustment v. Nash, 425 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The requisite hardship may not be found unless there is a showing that under present zoning, no reasonable use can be made of the property. Elwyn v. City of…
-
Hirt v. Polk Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs & Jack M. Watkins, Sr., 578 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…njunctive and declaratory suits are the proper way to attack a Board’s legislative actions. Sun Ray Homes, Inc. v. County of Dade, 166 So. 2d 827, 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). See Town of Indialantic v. Nance, 400 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); approved, 419 So. 2d 1041 (Fla.1982). Courts have frequently discussed the distinction between the standards of review which furnish the guidelines to determine the validity of different types of zoning actions. It has long been established that in reviewing a legislative a…
Previewing 3 of 30 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- de Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1957)
- Town OF Indialantic v. Nance, 400 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Allstate Mortg. Corp. of Fla. v. City OF Miami Beach, 308 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Allstate Mortg. Corp. OF Fla., 317 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1975)
- Levy Carlton Mears v. State, 317 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1975)