Maturo v. City of Coral Gables

Florida Circuit Courts

Maturo v. City of Coral Gables

50 Fla. Supp. 2d 6

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedSeptember 6, 1991

DocketCase No. 90-194 AP

StatusPublished

This text of 50 Fla. Supp. 2d 6 (Maturo v. City of Coral Gables) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maturo v. City of Coral Gables, 50 Fla. Supp. 2d 6 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

FERRO, J.

This appeal follows a final order of an administrative tribunal (the Coral Gables City Commission) granting a zoning variance to the Appellee, MINORCA CORPORATION.

In City of Coral Gables v Geary, 383 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA [7]*71980), the court stated that the granting of a variance can be justified and possibly required where there is a hardship unique to an individual owner and that a “peculiar characteristic of a particular parcel constitutes a classic hardship”.

The record of the proceeding below indicates that the applicant set forth evidence of a “hardship” before the City Commission. The hardship arose from circumstances peculiar to the property where only five of the seven lots owned by the applicant could be used for development. The parcel is located in two different jurisdictions causing this unusual situation.

The courts have clearly stated that they are not empowered to substitute their judgment for that of legislative and administrative bodies exercising objectives unless their action is shown to be “clearly arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, and having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, or welfare.” Bay View Investment, Inc. v Gringsby, 219 So.2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v City of Petaluma, 522 F.2d 897 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied 424 U.S. 934, 96 S.Ct. 1148, 47 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); Miami v Zorovich, 195 So.2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). It is clear from the evidence in the record, as stated above, that the City’s objective was reasonable and there is competent evidence to support the commission’s decision.

Therefore, based upon the foregoing, we affirm the decision of the City Commission.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

FERRO, J.

This appeal follows a final order of an administrative tribunal (the Coral Gables City Commission) granting a zoning variance to the Appellee, MINORCA CORPORATION.

In City of Coral Gables v Geary, 383 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA [7]*71980), the court stated that the granting of a variance can be justified and possibly required where there is a hardship unique to an individual owner and that a “peculiar characteristic of a particular parcel constitutes a classic hardship”.

The record of the proceeding below indicates that the applicant set forth evidence of a “hardship” before the City Commission. The hardship arose from circumstances peculiar to the property where only five of the seven lots owned by the applicant could be used for development. The parcel is located in two different jurisdictions causing this unusual situation.

The courts have clearly stated that they are not empowered to substitute their judgment for that of legislative and administrative bodies exercising objectives unless their action is shown to be “clearly arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, and having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, or welfare.” Bay View Investment, Inc. v Gringsby, 219 So.2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v City of Petaluma, 522 F.2d 897 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied 424 U.S. 934, 96 S.Ct. 1148, 47 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); Miami v Zorovich, 195 So.2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). It is clear from the evidence in the record, as stated above, that the City’s objective was reasonable and there is competent evidence to support the commission’s decision.

Therefore, based upon the foregoing, we affirm the decision of the City Commission.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 Fla. Supp. 2d 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maturo-v-city-of-coral-gables-flacirct-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack