City of Jacksonville Beach v. Grubbs, AW-408
| Decision Date | 03 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. AW-408,AW-408 |
| Citation | 461 So.2d 160 |
| Parties | CITY OF JACKSONVILLE BEACH, Appellant, v. Aaron C. GRUBBS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Lamar Winegeart, III of Arnold, Stratford & Booth, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Tyrie A. Boyer of Boyer, Tanzler & Boyer, and Gelman & Koegler, Jacksonville, for appellee.
Appellee owns seven vacant lots in the City of Jacksonville Beach. In early 1983, he sought to have them rezoned from R-1A (single family residential) to R-2 (which allows duplexes). When the City Council denied his request, appellee sought and obtained injunctive relief in the circuit court. We agree with the city that the trial court based its ruling on considerations which are legally insufficient to overturn the zoning authority's discretionary decision, and we therefore reverse.
The eastern boundary of Jacksonville Beach is, naturally, the Atlantic Ocean. Three blocks west of the beach, U.S. Highway A-1-A runs north and south. The first block west of the highway is zoned for commercial uses. The next block west, in which appellee's property is located, is zoned partially for multi-family residential uses and partially for single family residential. The block is divided into twelve lots, six facing north and six to the south. The four most easterly lots are zoned R-3. The remainder of the block is zoned R-1A and that zoning continues westerly for several blocks. This "step-down zoning" has been in effect along A-1-A in the area of appellee's property since 1962; appellee purchased his lots in 1975 or 1976. Three of the four lots zoned R-3 in appellee's block contain 4-unit apartments, and the remainder of the block is vacant. A map is appended to our opinion for clarification.
Pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975, Fla.Stat. §§ 163.3161-.3211 (1983), the City of Jacksonville Beach has adopted a comprehensive plan which includes a Land Use Plan for the year 2000. The plan proposes multi-family uses from Fourth Street west to Ninth Street, which would include appellee's property.
At the time of the trial, there was a proposed zoning change to RS-3 (single family and duplexes) for the area that includes the appellee's property. This proposal was scheduled for public hearing and had not been acted on by the City Council at the time of the trial, and this court has not been advised of any action taken by the city which would render this appeal moot.
Both parties presented expert testimony regarding the current zoning and the city's refusal to grant the rezoning request. Essentially, the experts held similar opinions: they testified that zoning boundaries in mid-block are a fairly common practice but that placing boundaries at the street is preferable; that denial of the rezoning request, while not arbitrary and capricious, precluded multi-family uses which would be more reasonable for the property. Most of the experts felt that the property would be worth more if zoned for multi-family use, but that current zoning does not deprive it of all value. One of the city's experts believed that current zoning does not diminish the property's value at all, while appellee, a builder by trade, testified that he would "go broke" if he built single family residences on his lots.
The executive director of the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council discussed the city's comprehensive plan. He noted that the plan is not self-executing and must be implemented by zoning and other ordinances.
After hearing the evidence, the trial court found:
that the highest and best use of plaintiff's property would be the development of same for multi-family dwellings; that the zoning ordinance now in effect which restricts the use of said property to single family dwellings is unreasonably restrictive; that the defendant City, in recognition of the fact that the best and most logical use of the property in order to foster the orderly growth of the area, did, on October 30, 1980 by its Ordinance No. 7077, approve the comprehensive plan for the future growth of the City as proposed by the City Planning Commission of The City of Jacksonville Beach, Florida; that said comprehensive plan recommends that the entire area in which plaintiff's property lies be rezoned so as to authorize multi-family (2 family) dwellings; that growth in the area surrounding the property owned by plaintiff has been slow, with relatively few single family family [sic] dwellings having been constructed in the area and with the majority of growth having been in the construction of multi-family (4 unit) dwellings in the corridor lying just east of plaintiff's property. The Court further finds that although the necessary zoning ordinance and accompanying zoning map have not yet been adopted by the defendant City in order to put into effect the comprehensive plan recommended by said City Planning Commission and approved by the defendant City, it appears to be a logical conclusion that such new zoning ordinance and zoning map will be approved by the City Council of defendant City after public hearings have been completed.
(Emphasis in original).
The court enjoined enforcement of a zoning classification on the property more restrictive than R-2, which allows duplexes.
In essence, the court relied on three factors in reaching its conclusion. We find that none of these factors are legally sufficient to support the ruling and that the city's decision should have been upheld under Florida's "fairly debatable" standard of review.
The circuit court stated that denial of appellee's request prevented him from realizing the "highest and best use" of the property. That finding is irrelevant to proper disposition of cases of this nature. City of Miami v. Walker, 169 So.2d 842, 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 176 So.2d 511 (Fla.1965). Rather, the burden is on the owner to show that the zoning imposed deprives the property of all beneficial use. City of Miami v. Zorovich, 195 So.2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 201 So.2d 554 (Fla.1967); see Burritt v. Harris, 172 So.2d 820 (Fla.1965); Davis v. Situs Inc., 275 So.2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). The only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snyder v. Board of County Com'rs of Brevard County
...be reviewed for facts and findings).58 Machado v. Musgrove, 519 So.2d 629, 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); City of Jacksonville Beach v. Grubbs, 461 So.2d 160, 162, 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), rev. denied, 469 So.2d 749 (Fla.1985); see also Hirt v. Polk County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 578 So.2d 415 (Fla......
-
Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland
...Homeowners Assn. v. Broward County, 502 So.2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. den., 511 So.2d 999 (Fla.1987); City of Jacksonville Beach v. Grubbs, 461 So.2d 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), rev. den. 469 So.2d 749 (Fla.1985). However, this case involves rezoning to a greater intensity or density. Thus we......
-
Lee County v. Sunbelt Equities, II, Ltd. Partnership, 92-03948
...local government must prove otherwise. See, e.g., City of St. Petersburg v. Aikin, 217 So.2d 315 (Fla.1968); City of Jacksonville Beach v. Grubbs, 461 So.2d 160 (Fla.1st DCA 1984), rev. denied, 469 So.2d 749 (Fla.1985). However, absent the assertion of some enforceable property right, an ap......
-
Board of County Com'rs of Brevard County v. Snyder
...65 (Fla. 5th DCA1991), because of its conflict with Schauer v. City of Miami Beach, 112 So.2d 838 (Fla.1959); City of Jacksonville Beach v. Grubbs, 461 So.2d 160 (Fla. 1st DCA1984), review denied, 469 So.2d 749 (Fla.1985); and Palm Beach County v. Tinnerman, 517 So.2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA1987)......