PINELLAS COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
CRAIG CARLSON AND DOROTHY CARLSON, 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.
The Florida appellate court reviewed a circuit court order that directed the Board of Adjustment to grant a special exception for a group home for ten elderly people. The court upheld the circuit court's finding that the Carlsons met the statutory criteria and that the Board lacked substantial competent evidence to deny the application, but reversed the directive to grant the exception and remanded for the Board to consider reasonable conditions.
The court affirmed that the Carlsons met the statutory criteria for a special exception and that the Board's denial lacked substantial competent evidence, but reversed the circuit court's directive to grant the exception. The Board must be afforded an opportunity on remand to consider whether reasonable conditions may be necessary under the Zoning Code.
[1] Once an applicant demonstrates that a request for a special exception meets statutory criteria, the burden shifts to the zoning authority to prove by substantial competen…
[2] A circuit court exceeds its power of review when it directs a specific action by a zoning board after remand, rather than allowing the board to exercise its discretion.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Once the applicant has shown initially that his request meets the statutory criteria for granting such exceptions, the burden thereafter shifts to the zoning authority to demonstrate by substantial competent evidence that the special exception does not, in fact, meet such standards and is adverse to the public interest.”
Establishes the burden-shifting framework for special exception review under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCraig and Dorothy Carlson applied for a special exception to establish a group home for ten elderly people on property zoned rural-residential in Pine…
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 Special Exception Zoning cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Pinellas County Board of Adjustment seeks certiorari review of an order of the circuit court which directed the board to grant an application for special exception. The application was filed by the respondents, Craig and Dorothy Carlson, who want to establish a group home for ten elderly people on property currently zoned rural-residential. The county’s land use regulations would allow such a facility so long as there are no more than ten residents, but if more than five are to be housed a special exception is needed. The Board of Adjustment denied the Carlsons’ application, but on certiorari to the circuit court, the Carlsons prevailed.
The Florida Supreme Court, in Irvine v. Duval County Planning Commission, 495 So. 2d 167 (Fla.1986), established the requirements and procedures involved in a request for special exception. Once the applicant has shown initially that his request meets the statutory criteria for granting such exceptions, the burden thereafter shifts to the zoning authority to demonstrate by substantial competent evidence that the special exception does not, in fact, meet such standards and is adverse to the public interest. In the present case we find no departure from the essential requirements of law in the circuit court’s conclusions that the Carlsons satisfied this burden and that the Board of Adjustment did not rely upon substantial competent evidence in reaching its adverse decision.
However, we agree, and respondents concede, that the court exceeded its power of review when it directed that a particular action should be taken by the board after remand. City of Miramar v. Amoco Oil Co., 524 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Although the board, under the circumstances of this case, may not have discretion to deny the Carlsons’ application, the Pinellas County Zoning Code provides the board with authority to impose reasonable conditions upon an approval of a special exception, and the board should be afforded the opportunity to consider whether such conditions may be necessary.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted in'part and denied in part, and this matter is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
RYDER, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Irvine v. Duval Cnty. Planning Comm'n, 495 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1986)
- D'Amico v. D'Amico, 524 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- City OF Miramar v. Amoco OIL Co., 524 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)