THE CITY OF TAMPA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
LILI MADISON, 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.
The City of Tampa sought certiorari review of a circuit court order that overturned the Tampa City Council's denial of a zoning change request. The appellate court granted the petition, finding the circuit court improperly shifted the burden of proof and that the council's decision was supported by substantial competent evidence.
The circuit court erred in overturning the city council's decision. The burden of proving the necessity for a zoning change rests upon the party seeking the change, not on the municipality. The city council's decision was supported by substantial competent evidence and was not arbitrary.
[1] A circuit court order overturning a zoning decision constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law when the court improperly shifts the burden of proof to…
[2] The burden of proving the necessity for a zoning change or the arbitrariness of an existing zoning classification rests upon the party seeking the change.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The burden of proving the necessity for a change in zoning, or the arbitrariness of an existing zoning classification, rests upon the party seeking the change.”
Establishes the proper allocation of burden of proof in zoning change requests; the party seeking change must prove necessity, not the municipality.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLili Madison owned a single-family home at the corner of Westshore Boulevard and Cleveland Street in Tampa, zoned R-1A. Commercial development had exp…
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 Petition For Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The City of Tampa seeks certiorari review of a circuit court order which overturned a zoning decision of the Tampa City Council. We agree that the circuit court’s order represents a departure from the es sential requirements of law and, accordingly, grant the petition for certiorari.
Respondent Madison is the owner of a lot and single family home situated at the southwest corner of the intersection of Westshore Boulevard and Cleveland Street in Tampa. Although considerable commercial development has taken place to the north of Madison’s property, her lot is presently zoned R-1A (single family dwelling). The areas to the south, east, and west remain predominantly residential in character. In June, 1986, Madison sought to have her property rezoned R-P (residential-professional). She claimed that the existing zoning classification, coupled with the proximity of commercial development, severely hampered her ability to sell the property and that rezoning would help create an appropriate buffer zone between the commercial and residential areas.
After hearing from Madison and other interested parties, including the Hillsbor-ough County City-County Planning Commission and residents of Madison’s neighborhood, the city council denied the request for rezoning. Madison thereupon sought certiorari relief in the circuit court. The court overturned the city council’s decision and ordered the property rezoned “not more restrictive than R-P.” In so holding, the court appears to have shifted to the city the burden of proving that the requested rezoning would adversely affect the welfare of the public. The burden of proving the necessity for a change in zoning, or the arbitrariness of an existing zoning classification, rests upon the party seeking the change. Alachua County v. Reddick, 368 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Rural New Town, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 315 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
We find, in the present case, that the issue of Madison’s entitlement to a zoning change was fairly debatable and that the city council’s decision was, in fact, supported by substantial competent evidence. The city council’s decision, therefore, should not have been overturned. Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners v. Longo, 505 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Hillsborough County v. Westshore Realty, Inc., 444 So. 2d 25 (Fla.2d DCA 1983).
The petition for writ of certiorari is hereby granted, the order of the circuit court is quashed, and this case is remanded with directions to reinstate the decision of the Tampa City Council.
Petition for certiorari granted.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ST. Johns Cnty. v. Owings, 554 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…illage of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926); City of Miami v. Lachman, 71 So. 2d 148 (Fla.1953), appeal dismissed, 348 U.S. 906, 75 S.Ct. 292, 99 L.Ed. 711 (1955); Tinnerman; City of Tampa v. Madison, 508 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). In making such a determination on review by certiorari, the scope of review by the first court and the second reviewing court is essentially similar. Anderson, American Law of Zoning, Ch. 27:27-34. Both have only the record mad…
-
Bailey v. City OF ST. Augustine Beach, 538 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…ntitled to the highest and best use of his property, a zoning classification that is arbitrary, unreasonable or confiscatory should not be allowed to stand. See e.g. City of Tampa v. Speth, 517 So. 2d 786 (Fla.2d DCA 1988); City of Tampa v. Madison, 508 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); S.A. Healy Co. v. Town of Highland Beach, 355 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). A zoning classification is confiscatory when it deprives the owner of all beneficial use of the land. See S.A. Healy Co., supra. The only expert testim…
Authorities Cited
- Rural NEW Town, Inc. v. Palm Beach Cnty., 315 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Alachua Cnty. v. Reddick, 368 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Hillsborough Cnty. v. Westshore Realty, Inc., 444 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Hillsborough Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Longo, 505 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)