CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS FOR THE CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH, FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
MONMOUTH LUMBER CORPORATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
Affirmed.
REED, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur.
WALDEN, J., dissents with opinion.
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. The property owner was not entitled to a variance relieving it of the necessity for providing off-street parking, either as a matter of fact or law.
The only basis for such variance is the economic advantage which would accrue to the property owner and this is not sufficient. Dade County v. Frank N’ Bun Operating Co., Inc., Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 875; Board of Adjustment of City of Fort Lauderdale v. Kremer, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 448; Friedland v. City of Hollywood, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 306. As a selfish practical matter, probably each individual property owner would like to be relieved of providing off-street parking and leave the parking problem to his neighbors and the city.
Here, the requirement was in existence when the owner purchased the property and hence the problem, if that’s what it is, was self-imposed and there has been no legal waiver as to it. Such circumstance bars the owner from variance relief. Josephson v. Autrey, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 784; Elwyn v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 849; Crossroads Lounge, Inc. v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1967, 195 So.2d 232; and Friedland v. City of Hollywood, supra.
Under these circumstances, Government, and particularly here the Zoning Board of Adjustment, should be supported in its effort to relieve the problems and stresses brought about by urbanization and increased vehicular traffic and not just overruled piecemeal because it would help a given owner out of a dilemma which he knowingly created.
I would reverse the judgment and thereby affirm the action of the Zoning Board of Adjustment in its effort to uphold its zoning restrictions and require the property owner to provide off-street parking for three cars.
WALDEN, J.
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. The property owner was not entitled to a variance relieving it of the necessity for providing off-street parking, either as a matter of fact or law.
The only basis for such variance is the economic advantage which would accrue to the property owner and this is not sufficient. Dade County v. Frank N’ Bun Operating Co., Inc., Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 875; Board of Adjustment of City of Fort Lauderdale v. Kremer, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 448; Friedland v. City of Hollywood, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 306. As a selfish practical matter, probably each individual property owner would like to be relieved of providing off-street parking and leave the parking problem to his neighbors and the city.
Here, the requirement was in existence when the owner purchased the property and hence the problem, if that’s what it is, was self-imposed and there has been no legal waiver as to it. Such circumstance bars the owner from variance relief. Josephson v. Autrey, Fla.1957, 96 So. 2d 784; Elwyn v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1959, 113 So. 2d 849; Crossroads Lounge, Inc. v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1967, 195 So. 2d 232; and Friedland v. City of Hollywood, supra.
Under these circumstances, Government, and particularly here the Zoning Board of Adjustment, should be supported in its effort to relieve the problems and stresses brought about by urbanization and increased vehicular traffic and not just overruled piecemeal because it would help a given owner out of a dilemma which he knowingly created.
I would reverse the judgment and thereby affirm the action of the Zoning Board of Adjustment in its effort to uphold its zoning restrictions and require the property owner to provide off-street parking for three cars.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ne. Bank OF Clearwater v. Bentley, 413 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…he intended person received the proceeds of the check. Florida National Bank v. Geer, 96 So. 2d 409 (Fla.1957); First Independent Bank v. Stottlemyer & Shoemaker Lumber Co., 384 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Sullivan v. Wilton Manors National Bank, 259 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). The trial judge in the case before us rejected that defense by the Bank because no order had ever been entered in Mrs. Bentley’s guardianship proceeding authorizing or confirming the agreement between Mrs. Bentley’s guardian and…
-
First Indep. Bank, N.A. v. Stottlemyer & Shoemaker Lumber Co., 384 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…ment payable to the order of two or more persons: ... (2) [i]f not in the alternative is payable to all of them and may be negotiated, discharged or enforced only by all of them.” § 673.116, Fla.Stat. (1979); Sullivan v. Wilton Manors National Bank, 259 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). A bank which wrongfully appropriates commercial paper may be liable for conversion, see Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Citizens & Peoples National Bank, 74 Fla. 385, 77 So. 104 (1917), and appellant’s disposal of the check i…
Authorities Cited
- Elwyn v. City OF Miami, 113 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Norton Josephson v. Autrey, 96 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1957)
- Warriner v. Maxine Hotel Corp., 96 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1957)
- Friedland v. City OF Hollywood, 130 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Bd. OF Adjustment OF City OF Fort Lauderdale v. Kremer, 139 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Dade Cnty. v. Frank N' BUN Operating Co., Inc., 169 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Simon v. State, 195 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Crossroads Lounge, Inc. v. The City OF Miami, 195 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)