CHARLES ORLANDO, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK COMTOIS, IRENE COMTOIS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND FREDERICK HAMILTON, WILLIAM C. FREDERICKS, JOSEPH EVANS, GEORGE VIX, AND CHARLES SMITH, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE NORTH PENINSULA ZONING DISTRICT, APPELLEES
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.
Charles Orlando appealed a circuit court order quashing a zoning variance granted by the Board of Adjustment for his property in Volusia County, Florida. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the Board of Adjustment exceeded its authority by effectively rezoning the property rather than granting a valid variance.
The circuit court correctly determined that the Board of Adjustment exceeded its authority. While the court erred in finding Orlando's hardship was self-created (since his ownership preceded the zoning ordinance), the Board's action constituted an improper rezoning rather than a valid variance, exceeding the Board's delegated powers.
“the power to grant variances was not equivalent to the power to effectuate a pro tanto amendment of the basic zoning ordinance by authorizing a nonconforming use in a zoning district where such use is unauthorized”
Establishes the critical distinction between valid variance authority and impermissible rezoning authority that the Board of Adjustment violated
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Orlando owned land in the North Peninsula Zoning District in Volusia County. The Board of Adjustment granted Orlando a zoning variance for his…
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 Self-Created Hardship cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks reversal of an order entered by the circuit court quashing a decision of the Board of Adjustment of the North Peninsula Zoning District in Volu-sia County, which order granted a zoning variance to the appellant.
The order of quashal in the trial court was founded on three stated grounds. First, the action of the Board of Adjustment amounted to rezoning rather than a variance and thus was beyond the jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment. Second, no substantial competent evidence was offered in support of granting the variance. Finally, that the hardship alleged was self-created by the party seeking the variance.
Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and arguments of the parties herein, we are convinced that the trial court erroneously ruled that appellant’s hardship was self-created inasmuch as it is clear that appellant’s ownership of the land in question preceded the enactment of the zoning in question. However, it is our view that the overriding issue presented by the case is whether the action taken by the Board of Adjustment constituted a rezoning of appellant’s property as opposed to the granting of a variance. The criticality of this question is apparent since the Board of Adjustment is not empowered to rezone property, whereas it is empowered to grant variances. We think the distinction between the two is amply set forth in the Supreme Court’s opinion in Josephson v. Autrey, 96 So.2d 784. In Josephson, the court construed the authority of the zoning *561board of appeals under a grant of authority similar in all material respects to that with which the instant Board of Adjustment is clothed and held that the power to grant variances was not equivalent to the power to effectuate a pro tanto amendment of the basic zoning ordinance by authorizing a nonconforming use in a zoning district where such use is unauthorized. We think this is precisely what the Board of Adjustment attempted to do in the case at bar. Hence, the trial court correctly ruled that the Board of Adjustment exceeded its authority.
Accordingly, the order of the lower court granting certiorari is affirmed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MT. Plymouth Land Owners' League, Inc. v. Lake Cnty. (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…d of Commissioners. Therefore, the Board of Commissioners has the power to grant rezoning with or without conditions. LDR 14.00.04(D). But the power to rezone is distinct from the power to grant zoning variances and waivers. See Orlando v. Comtois, 223 So. 2d 560, 560–61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969) (citing Josephson v. Autrey, 96 So. 2d 784, 787 (Fla. 1957) (en banc)). LDR 13.01.01 contains no mention of the power to grant variances and waivers. Nor is there any mention of this power belonging to the Board of Commis…
Authorities Cited
- Norton Josephson v. Autrey, 96 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1957)
- Warriner v. Maxine Hotel Corp., 96 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1957)