HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIS W. PUTNEY, AND JEANIE T. PUTNEY, HUSBAND AND WIFE, RESPONDENTS
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.
Hillsborough County sought certiorari review of a circuit court order that reversed the Board of County Commissioners' denial of the Putneys' rezoning application. The district court reversed the circuit court, holding that the Board properly denied the rezoning because the application was inconsistent with the county's comprehensive plan, which required conservation areas to be rezoned only through planned development applications with detailed site plans.
The Board of County Commissioners properly denied the rezoning application. The comprehensive plan for Hillsborough County explicitly required denial of rezoning applications in conservation areas unless the application was for a planned development with detailed site plan review. Because the Putneys' application was inconsistent with this provision of the comprehensive plan, the Board had valid authority to deny it.
[1] A county board of commissioners may deny a rezoning application that is inconsistent with the county's comprehensive plan.
[2] A comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to state statute governs all development and land use regulations within its purview.
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“all development undertaken by governmental agencies in regard to land covered by such plan shall be consistent with such plan as adopted. All land development regulations enacted or amended shall be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan”
Establishes the foundational requirement that governmental development and land regulations must be consistent with the comprehensive plan
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Putneys applied to rezone 2.4 acres of property on U.S. Highway 301 from agricultural to commercial neighborhood zoning to construct retail stores…
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 Local Government Comprehensive Planning And Land Development Regulation Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Hillsborough County, Florida, seeks a writ of certiorari to review the trial court’s order reversing the decision of the Board of County Commissioners to deny respondents’ rezoning application. It is the contention of petitioner that the denial of the rezoning application was proper because the application was not consistent with the comprehensive plan for Hillsbor-ough County. We agree with petitioner and grant the petition.
Respondents, Louis W. and Jeanie T. Putney, filed an application seeking a change in the zoning of certain property from agricultural to commercial neighborhood. This 2.4 acre parcel is located on U.S. Highway 301 in Hillsborough County and is covered by a red maple swamp. The property surrounding respondents’ land have the following zoning and uses: to the north is C-2 zoning and contains an empty building; to the east is U.S. Highway 301, agricultural zoning and vacant land; to the south is highway commercial zoning and a package store and lounge; and to the west is C-3 zoning, vacant land and an industrial park. The respondents proposed to construct retail stores on the property.
The staff of the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission determined that the red maple swamp is a conservation area. The record indicates that none of the surrounding properties are conservation areas.
The department of development coordination staff report recommended denial of the commercial neighborhood zoning district because of the traffic conditions on U.S. Highway 301, and because interference with the red maple swamp would violate the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Act, chapter 84-446, Laws of Florida. The planning commission staff objected to the proposed rezoning because of the conservation area and recommended that respondents amend their application to request a planned development and submit a site plan in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Respondents declined to amend their application. The matter was heard by a special zoning master who agreed with the staff reports.
When the matter was heard by the Board, respondents were again extended the opportunity, which they declined, to amend their application to comply with the comprehensive plan. The Board then concurred with the recommendations of the department of development coordination, planning commission and zoning master, and denied the application.
The circuit court subsequently granted respondents’ petition for a writ of certiorari. The court found that enforcement of a “policy” by the Board to disapprove all rezoning applications in conservation areas unless the application is for planned development which requires a site plan was in conflict with the law of the State of Florida, citing Porpoise Point Partnership v. St. John’s County, 470 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The court held that the Board’s action in denying respondents’ application was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, and ordered the Board to rezone the property to a zoning classification not more restrictive than neighborhood commercial.
The comprehensive plan for Hillsborough County was adopted by ordinance pursuant to the requirements of the Little Elms Act, chapter 75-390, Laws of Florida, (amended 1977, 1983, 1986). The Little Elms Act, which is similar to the “Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act,” part II, chapter 163, Florida Statutes, (1985), states that the status of the comprehensive plan shall be as follows:
(1) After a comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, has been adopted in conformity with this act, all development undertaken by governmental agencies in regard to land covered by such plan shall be consistent with such plan as adopted. All land development regulations enacted or amended shall be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof.
Ch. 75-390, § 14(1), Laws of Fla.; see § 163.3194(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1985). In the conservation element of the comprehensive plan adopted by Hillsborough County is the following provision: “Disapprove all rezoning applications within conservation areas unless the application is for a planned development which requires detailed site plan review following specific guidelines and criteria.” Hillsborough County, Fla., Ordinance 77-26 (Nov. 30, 1977).
Pursuant to the provisions of part II, chapter 163, Florida Statutes (1985), the Board is authorized to disapprove any rezoning application that does not comply with the comprehensive plan. See also, Sengra Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 476 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (inconsistency with the comprehensive development master plan was a valid basis for denying rezoning request); Alachua County v. Eagle’s Nest Farms, Inc., 473 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 486 So. 2d 595 (Fla.1986) (inconsistency with intent and purpose of the comprehensive plan was valid basis for denying special use permit).
The fact that the respondents’ zoning application was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan clearly distinguishes this case from that relied on by respondents and the circuit court. In Porpoise Point, the requested rezoning was denied by the county zoning authority on the ground that the property owner did not present a plan showing the specific use intended for the property. The requested rezoning was consistent with the comprehensive plan. The fifth district reversed the zoning authority and held that a property owner is entitled to have his property properly zoned without regard to the one particular use the owner might intend to make of the various uses permitted under a proper zoning classification. Porpoise Point, 470 So. 2d at 851. Here, because respondents’ land is a conservation area, the comprehensive plan requires either application for a planned site development, including the site plan requirement, or denial of the rezoning request.
The evidence before the Board of County Commissioners reasonably supported its conclusion that Putneys’ rezoning application did not comply with the requirements of the comprehensive plan. Absent an abuse of discretion or a clearly erroneous decision, the Board’s decision should not have been set aside by the circuit court. Such did not exist in the present case.
We reverse the circuit court and remand the case with directions to reinstate the Board’s decision.
Reversed and remanded.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MacHado v. Musgrove, 519 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…o. 2d 468 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), a different and incompatible character of use, Alachua County v. Eagle’s Nest Farms, Inc., 473 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), or a failure to comply with the plan’s mandatory procedures, Hillsborough County v. Putney, 495 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), the requested rezoning will be denied as inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. In Sengra Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 476 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), we held that a grant of zoning for a use not consistent with the…
-
White v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 563 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…, as it regards the master plan, is whether the park land, concededly environmentally sensitive, was developed in accordance with the master plan’s guidelines for such land. Consequently, this case is more analogous to Hillsborough County v. Putney, 495 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), which involved a conservation element written into that county’s comprehensive plan. There, the court ruled that the standard of review in such cases is whether the zoning authority (county commission) abused its discretion or wa…
-
LEE Cnty. v. Sunbelt Equities, II, 619 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…stitution” and has been described as “a limitation on a local government’s otherwise broad zoning powers.” Machado v. Musgrove, 519 So. 2d 629, 632 (Fla.3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 529 So. 2d 693 (Fla.1988).8 See also, Hills-borough County v. Putney, 495 So. 2d 224 (Fla.2d DCA 1986). And cf. City of Cape Canaveral v. Mosher, 467 So. 2d 468, 471 (Cowart, J., concurring specially). According to Machado, “where a zoning action is challenged as violative of the comprehensive land use plan, the burden of proof is…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Alachua Cnty. v. Eagle's Nest Farms, Inc., 473 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Porpoise Point P'ship v. ST. Johns Cnty., 470 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- The Sengra Corp. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 476 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)