JOHN G. LANE LINE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, 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.
Lane Line, Inc. challenged the City of Jacksonville's denial of its rezoning application, seeking to convert residential-zoned property to business zoning. The court upheld the city's decision, finding the zoning denial was within the city's discretion and had a rational basis in protecting surrounding residential neighborhoods.
The court affirmed the city's denial of the rezoning application, holding that the decision was within the city's discretion and was supported by a rational basis—protecting surrounding residential properties from business encroachment.
“the change in character of the property resulted directly from the use to which plaintiff devotes the adjacent parcel of land owned by it under a Business "B" zoning classification”
Establishes that the plaintiff's own business operations caused the residential property to become unsuitable for residential use, undermining its rezoning argument.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLane Line owned two adjacent parcels in Jacksonville: one zoned Residence C (residential only) and one zoned Business B (general business and light in…
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 Arbitrary And Capricious Zoning cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff seeks review of a final decree denying it the injunctive relief it seeks by its complaint herein, and dismissing with prejudice the cause.
By its complaint plaintiff asserts that it is the owner of a parcel of land in the City of Jacksonville presently zoned as Residence *17C” and usable only for residential purposes; that this parcel is adjacent to another parcel of land owned and occupied by plaintiff which is zoned Business “B” and usable for general business, distribution, and light industry and is in fact presently used and occupied by plaintiff in connection with the operation of its business; that plaintiff’s property zoned for Residence “C” use is no longer desirable or adaptable to that purpose but has a value only for those uses permitted by Business “B” zoning regulations; that it applied to defendant city for a rezoning of its parcel from Residence “C” to Business “B,” which application was denied; that such denial was arbitrary, discriminatory, confiscatory, and illegal, having no substantial relationship to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare and constitutes a taking of plaintiff’s property without due process of law.
Upon the evidence adduced at the hearing the chancellor found that the parcel in dispute was in fact no longer adaptable for use as residential property. The chancellor further found, however, that the change in character of the land in dispute which occurred between the date of zoning and the present did not arise from natural or other causes beyond the control of the plaintiff which rendered it no longer adaptable to residential use. The chancellor found that the change in character of the property resulted directly from the use to which plaintiff devotes the adjacent parcel of land owned by it under a Business “B” zoning classification and on which it operates its business. The chancellor concluded that to rezone plaintiff’s land to a Business “B” classification would work an unjustifiable hardship on the homeowners whose property is zoned for residential use only and which surrounds the disputed parcel of land on three sides.
The chancellor found that whether the zoning regulations of the city, as applied to plaintiff’s property, are reasonable and hear a just relationship to the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the community and its citizens was fairly debatable and therefore falls within the ambit of the city’s discretion in denying plaintiff’s application for rezoning. The chancellor’s conclusion is amply supported by the record under the established principles of law prevailing in this state, and therefore must be affirmed.1
Affirmed.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF ST. Petersburg v. Aikin, 217 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1968)…e courts should tread lightly in this field and then only where the actions of the City Council are so unreasonable and unjustified as to amount to confiscation of property.’ ” See also John G. Lane Line, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, Fla.App.1967, 196 So. 2d 16. . Maximum value estimated by plaintiffs’ witnesses, for uses prohibited by the present classification, was upon the most favorable view not more than one hundred thousand dollars.…
-
City OF ST. Petersburg v. Aikin, 208 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…v. Jennings Const. Co., Fla.App.1967, 196 So. 2d 33, are consonant with the Chancellor’s opinion here. The cases of Metropolitan Dade County v. Kanter, Fla.App.1967, 200 So. 2d 624, and John G. Lane Line, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, Fla.App.1967, 196 So. 2d 16, indicate a variance. But we prefer the rationale of Judge Driver’s opinion aforesaid, and therefore affirm the final order here appealed. It follows that said final order should be and is hereby affirmed. Affirmed. LILES, C. J., and ALLEN, J., c…
-
Orange Cnty. v. Lust, 602 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…is the size of the parcel which affects its use, voluntarily and knowingly acquired for the purpose of requiring rezoning because of its size in order to enhance its value, no taking has occurred. See John G. Lane Line, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 196 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967) which denied rezoning, stating: The chancellor further found, however, that the change in character of the land in dispute which occurred between the date of zoning and the present did not arise from natural or other causes beyo…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City of Miami Beach v. Lachman, 71 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1953)
- Dade Cnty. v. Mitchell, 188 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)