PORPOISE POINT PARTNERSHIP, ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
ST. JOHNS COUNTY, ETC., RESPONDENT
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.
A zoning authority cannot deny rezoning based on the landowner's specific intended use, but must consider appropriate zoning classifications.
[1] A zoning authority cannot deny a rezoning request based on the property owner's failure to present a plan for a specific intended use, as such a requirement constitutes d…
[2] A property owner is entitled to have their property zoned according to proper zoning concepts, irrespective of any single intended use.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner sought to rezone a parcel from residential back to commercial, consistent with the comprehensive plan. The zoning authority denied the requ…
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 Zoning Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
Certiorari review is sought of a trial court order denying certiorari on review of the denial of rezoning by the zoning authority of St. Johns County.
Alleging that it had previously inadvertently included a certain parcel of its property located on highway A1A North in a prior general rezoning request that resulted in a zoning change from commercial general (CG-B) to residential (RS-3), petitioner requested the Board of County Commissioners of St. Johns County, Florida, to rezone its parcel from residential use back to com mercial general. The requested commercial general classification is consistent with the county comprehensive zoning plan.1 The county zoning authority denied the rezoning on the ground that the petitioner presented no plan for the specific use the petitioner intended to make of the parcel in question.
The circuit court found that even under the “fairly debatable” test the property was improperly zoned residential but denied certiorari review on the basis that it was “fairly debatable” whether the property should be rezoned general commercial (CG-B) or some more restrictive commercial classification.
A property owner is entitled to have his property properly zoned based on proper zoning concepts without regard to the one particular use which the owner might then intend to make of the various uses permitted under a proper zoning classification. A zoning authority’s insistence on considering the owner’s specific use of a parcel of land constitutes not zoning but direct governmental control of the actual use of each parcel of land which is inconsistent with constitutionally guaranteed private property rights.
The petition for certiorari review is granted, the order of the circuit court is quashed and the cause is remanded for entry of an order remanding to the county zoning authority for a determination of the appropriate commercial zoning classification based on proper zoning concepts rather than on any specific proposed use.
PETITION GRANTED; CAUSE REMANDED.
COBB, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur. . See § 163.3194(1), Fla.Stat.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ABG Real Est. Dev. Co. OF Fla., Inc. v. ST. Johns Cnty., 608 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…use of a parcel of land constitutes not zoning but direct governmental control of the actual use of each parcel of land which is inconsistent with constitutionally guaranteed private property rights. Porpoise Point Partnership v. St. Johns County, 470 So. 2d 850, 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). In summary, the property owner presented a prima facie case that the requested use of its land was consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and complied with the procedural requirements of the zoning ordinance. All…
-
Hillsborough Cnty. v. Putney, 495 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…to disapprove all rezoning applications in conservation areas unless the application is for planned development which requires a site plan was in conflict with the law of the State of Florida, citing Porpoise Point Partnership v. St. John’s County, 470 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The court held that the Board’s action in denying respondents’ application was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, and ordered the Board to rezone the property to a zoning classification not more restrictive than neighborhoo…
-
Debes v. The City OF KEY W., 690 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…use of a parcel of land constitutes not zoning but direct governmental control of the actual use of each parcel of land which is inconsistent with constitutionally guaranteed private property rights. Porpoise Point Partnership v. St. Johns County, 470 So. 2d 850, 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); accord ABG Real Estate Dev. Co. v. St. Johns County, 608 So. 2d 59, 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), cause dismissed, 613 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1993). In sum, the record reflects that the only reason for the denial of the proposed rezoning…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence