Carlson v. Town of West Miami

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Carlson v. Town of West Miami

118 So. 2d 835, 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2803

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 17, 1960

DocketNo. 58-749

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 118 So. 2d 835 (Carlson v. Town of West Miami) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carlson v. Town of West Miami, 118 So. 2d 835, 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2803 (Fla. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

CARROLL, CHAS., Judge.

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs below, from an adverse summary final decree rendered in an equity suit in the Circuit Court in Dade County.

Appellants, desiring to make an unauthorized enlargement of a non-conforming use on property owned by them in the Town of West Miami, petitioned the town Planning and Zoning Board for a variance, which the board denied on July 9, 1958. The owners then appealed that decision to the Town Council, which also ruled adversely to them, on July 21, 1958. More than 30 days later, on September 11, 1958, appellants filed suit in the Circuit Court seeking to compel the town to grant the requested variance.

The town’s answer, as amended, pleaded non-compliance with the 30 day period allowed for suit in the Circuit Court, after such action on the matter by the town, as provided for in § 176.16, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.¹ The town then moved for summary judgment, supporting its motion with a showing of the applicable zoning ordinance, and reports of the proceedings on the matter before the Town Zoning Board and the Council.

The chancellor granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant town, and dismissed the cause. The decree was based “upon the sole ground of the failure of plaintiffs to comply with Section 176.16 of the Florida Statutes.”

Under the circumstances revealed in the case the provisions of § 176.16 were applicable, and the learned chancellor was eminently correct in enforcing the 30 day period for filing a petition for review in the Circuit Court as provided for in the statute. See Cliff v. Bilett, 125 Colo. 138, 241 P.2d 437; Carbone v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 126 Conn. 602, 13 A.2d 462; Ballman v. Duffecy, 230 Ind. 220, 102 N.E. 2d 646; Bischoff v. Hennessy, Ky.1952, 251 S.W.2d 582; Maryland Clothing Mfg. v. City of Baltimore, 207 Md. 165, 113 A.2d 743; Del Grosso v. Board of Appeal of Revere, 330 Mass. 29, 110 N.E.2d 836; Schneller v. Board of County Com’rs, 91 Ohio App. 523, 108 N.E.2d 747; Blank v. Board of Adjustment, 390 Pa. 636, 136 A.2d 695; Arendale v. Rasch, 196 Tenn. 374, 268 S.W.2d 102; 101 C.J.S., Zoning, §§ 353, 360; 2 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning & Planning, 146-159 (3d ed. 1957); 1 Yokley, Zoning Law & Practice, § 174 (2d ed. 1953). Cf. Josephson v. Autrey, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 784, 786-787.

Affirmed.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CARROLL, CHAS., Judge.

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs below, from an adverse summary final decree rendered in an equity suit in the Circuit Court in Dade County.

Appellants, desiring to make an unauthorized enlargement of a non-conforming use on property owned by them in the Town of West Miami, petitioned the town Planning and Zoning Board for a variance, which the board denied on July 9, 1958. The owners then appealed that decision to the Town Council, which also ruled adversely to them, on July 21, 1958. More than 30 days later, on September 11, 1958, appellants filed suit in the Circuit Court seeking to compel the town to grant the requested variance.

The town’s answer, as amended, pleaded non-compliance with the 30 day period allowed for suit in the Circuit Court, after such action on the matter by the town, as provided for in § 176.16, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.¹ The town then moved for summary judgment, supporting its motion with a showing of the applicable zoning ordinance, and reports of the proceedings on the matter before the Town Zoning Board and the Council.

The chancellor granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant town, and dismissed the cause. The decree was based “upon the sole ground of the failure of plaintiffs to comply with Section 176.16 of the Florida Statutes.”

Under the circumstances revealed in the case the provisions of § 176.16 were applicable, and the learned chancellor was eminently correct in enforcing the 30 day period for filing a petition for review in the Circuit Court as provided for in the statute. See Cliff v. Bilett, 125 Colo. 138, 241 P.2d 437; Carbone v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 126 Conn. 602, 13 A.2d 462; Ballman v. Duffecy, 230 Ind. 220, 102 N.E. 2d 646; Bischoff v. Hennessy, Ky.1952, 251 S.W.2d 582; Maryland Clothing Mfg. v. City of Baltimore, 207 Md. 165, 113 A.2d 743; Del Grosso v. Board of Appeal of Revere, 330 Mass. 29, 110 N.E.2d 836; Schneller v. Board of County Com’rs, 91 Ohio App. 523, 108 N.E.2d 747; Blank v. Board of Adjustment, 390 Pa. 636, 136 A.2d 695; Arendale v. Rasch, 196 Tenn. 374, 268 S.W.2d 102; 101 C.J.S., Zoning, §§ 353, 360; 2 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning & Planning, 146-159 (3d ed. 1957); 1 Yokley, Zoning Law & Practice, § 174 (2d ed. 1953). Cf. Josephson v. Autrey, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 784, 786-787.

Affirmed.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 So. 2d 835, 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlson-v-town-of-west-miami-fladistctapp-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack