Title: Clarke v. Morgan

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

327 So. 2d 769 (1975)
Richard S. CLARKE, Chairman, et al., Appellants,
v.
Peter J. MORGAN, Jr., et al., Appellees.
No. 46504.

Supreme Court of Florida.
December 10, 1975.
As Modified on Denial of Rehearing March 4, 1976.
Morison Buck, Asst. City Atty., for appellants.
Theodore C. Taub, Gibbons, Tucker, McEwen, Smith, Cofer & Taub, Tampa, for appellees.
SUNDBERG, Justice.
On direct appeal we review a summary judgment of the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, which held Chapter 69-1651, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1969, to be unconstitutional. Our jurisdiction vests by virtue of Florida Constitution, Article V, Section 3(b)(1), F.S.A.
This controversy over the use variance power of the City of Tampa Board of Adjustment arose when the Board granted one W.G. Hobbs the right to alter an existing residence to a tearoom restaurant with a seating capacity of forty-eight and with an area for off-street parking sufficient to accommodate fourteen vehicles. The property at issue was zoned R-3, the basic multi-family residential dwelling classification, and, therefore, the use intended by Hobbs was unquestionably nonconforming. The City's building inspector denied the requested permit, and appeal was taken to the Board. The Board granted the use *770 variance despite the unanimous contrary recommendation of the Hillsborough County Planning Commission, which must review all such applications before the Board of Adjustment can act. Chapter 69-1651, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1969, supra.
Appellees, owners of residences adjacent to the subject property, commenced this litigation. They moved the lower court for entry of summary judgment on the ground that the Board did not have legal authority to grant use variances. The circuit court declared the granting of the use variance on the Hobbs property to be null and void, finding Chapter 69-1651 to be constitutionally invalid insofar as it purports to grant the Board authority to issue a use variance permitting property to be used in a manner prohibited by the zoning ordinances of the City of Tampa.
We have before us, therefore, the constitutionality, vel non, of Chapter 69-1651, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1969, which provides in pertinent part as follows:
This Special Act affecting Tampa, Florida, can be measured against the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act which provides:
The learned trial judge in an extensive and well-written summary final judgment concluded that Chapter 69-1651, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1969, constitutes a prohibited delegation of legislative authority to an administrative agency in contravention of Article II, Section 3, Florida Constitution. The trial court cites extensively from the Florida cases which have dealt with this thorny problem and have reached differing results depending on the facts of the particular case. Our review of the cases on the subject reflects that the courts of Florida have reached differing results depending, essentially, on whether the court concluded the action taken by the board or commission constituted the exercise of legislative authority, in which event *771 the administrative agency's action was struck down, or whether the court concluded that the action of the board or commission constituted the exercise of an administrative function, in which event the action of the board or commission was sustained. Cases representative of the first category are Josephson v. Autrey, 96 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1957), wherein the board was held to be without authority to allow construction of a filling station in an area zoned restrictively for motels and tourist accommodations; Mayflower Property, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 137 So. 2d 849 (2d DCA Fla. 1962), wherein the board was not permitted to allow petitioner to build hotels, motels, or apartments on property zoned Residential because this indulgence would be tantamount to placing the property affected in an entirely different zone; Clarke v. DiDio, 226 So. 2d 23 (2d DCA Fla. 1969), wherein the board was held powerless to grant a permit allowing construction of two apartment buildings in an area zoned for single family dwellings, the case arising prior to the 1969 legislative action specifically authorizing the board to issue "use variances" where appropriate; and Kaeslin v. Adams, 97 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1957), wherein the principle of equitable estoppel operated to preclude revocation of a permit issued to allow construction of a trailer park in a prohibited area, after the owner had spent $6,900 on the project in reliance on the earlier decision. The last cited case must be construed to fall within the stated category by virtue of the enunciation by the court on rehearing that it should not be deemed to be in conflict with Josephson v. Autrey in that the majority of the court concurred in its decision on the basis of equitable estoppel, thereby effectively neutralizing the concurring opinion of Associate Justice Taylor which would otherwise have placed the case in the second category announced above.
The second category of cases, i.e., those which conclude that the grant of a use variance under the circumstances of the particular case is essentially an administrative function, is represented by Tau Alpha Holding Corporation v. Board of Adjustments of City of Gainesville, 126 Fla. 858, 171 So. 819 (1937), wherein an ordinance giving the board power to vary the effect of a zoning regulation was held not to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority, the court upholding a temporary permit to a restaurant owner to replace his frame building with a brick building despite its location in an area zoned Residential; State ex rel. Taylor v. City of Jacksonville, 101 Fla. 1241, 133 So. 114 (1931). wherein the court quashed a writ of mandamus ordering the issuance of a permit for the construction of a commercial building in a residential zone and held constitutional the special act granting to an administrative body or board authority to grant use variances as against the contention that said act unconstitutionally delegated legislative power; State ex rel. Landis v. Valz, 117 Fla. 311, 157 So. 651 (1934), wherein a zoning ordinance allowing the city commissioners to permit construction of a racetrack in a residentially-zoned area was upheld; and Wood v. Twin Lakes Mobile Homes Village, Inc., 123 So. 2d 738 (2d DCA Fla. 1960), wherein a suit by a property owner attacking a zoning classification as unreasonable was dismissed for failure to exhaust "administrative remedies" which included application to zoning authorities for variance.
The seeming divergence in result reached by the Florida cases on the question here presented is also reflected in the cases from other jurisdictions. A collection and summary of those divergent views is aptly set forth in the case of Nelson v. Donaldson, 255 Ala. 76, 50 So. 2d 244 (1951). See also the annotation appearing in 58 A.L.R.2d 1083.
Although each of the foregoing representative Florida cases has directly or indirectly considered the question of delegation of legislative authority to an administrative body when that body engages in the grant *772 or denial of a use variance, the question of the constitutionality vel non of the enabling act under which the agency performed has not been determined in this state, except in Tau Alpha Holding Corporation v. Board of Adjustments of City of Gainesville, supra. In each instance the action of the board with respect to the particular facts of the case was considered. For example, in the extensive and well-considered opinion in Josephson v. Autrey, supra, this court did not hold the enabling act unconstitutional, but decided only that the appeals board exceeded its authority in that its action was tantamount to amending the zoning ordinance. As stated by Mr. Justice Thornal at page 788 of the opinion:
If such language is literally construed it equals a broad disapproval of all use variances. However, absent some provision of a statute or ordinance specifically withholding the power to grant use variances, no court has disapproved all such variances. Anderson, American Law of Zoning, § 14.68, page 59. If the same language is construed in the context of the court's remarks about power "circumscribed by reasonable bounds" for its exercise and about a grant of "unrestricted power", the disapproval of use variances can be reduced only to those variances which are unsupported by such reasonable grounds, or where the enabling act places inadequate limitations upon the discretion of the board.
From a review of the foregoing authorities both within and outside the state of Florida we conclude that the act under review should not be construed to be unconstitutional vel non if appropriate and meaningful standards are included therein to guide an administrative body in acting upon an application for a use variance. We turn, then, to an examination of the express language of the act to ascertain whether the Legislature has imposed sufficient limitations upon the discretion to be exercised by the board of adjustment so as to obviate the objection that the proper exercise of its function violates the constitutional prohibition against delegation of legislative authority. We can be guided in this inquiry by reference to the analysis made by Mr. Justice Terrell in State ex rel. Taylor v. City of Jacksonville, supra, wherein his task was to determine whether it was a prohibited delegation of legislative power to authorize a city commission through its inspector of buildings to enforce and administer the zoning ordinances of the City of Jacksonville there under consideration. Commencing at page 115 of 133 So. Mr. Justice Terrell opined:
The standards and guidelines set forth by the Legislature in Chapter 69-1651, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1969, which limit the board of adjustment in acting upon appeals in specific cases to grant variances, may be paraphrased as follows:
It appears clear that the foregoing standards would in no instance authorize the Board of Adjustment to engage in amendments of the basic zoning ordinance, which is a legislative function condemned by Mr. Justice Thornal in Josephson v. Autrey, supra. In the first place, under the proscriptions contained in the Special Act, the applicant must make a showing of special conditions and that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinances will result in unnecessary hardship. Explicit, then, is the requirement that the applicant show not only hardship but unnecessary hardship by literal enforcement; that such unnecessary hardship is brought about by special conditions; and, of course, the hardship cannot be "self-created" as condemned by Josephson v. Autrey. Additionally, and of equal significance, such change in use cannot be "contrary to the public interest" and must serve "substantial justice". The quoted terms make it clear that in considering an application the board of adjustment must take into cognizance the scheme of comprehensive zoning reflected in the ordinances and may not upset the balance between the public interest served by the comprehensive plan and the individual interest of an applicant who makes the requisite showing of "unnecessary hardship." The Act goes even further by prohibiting use variances for new construction on unimproved property and provides the check of a review by and recommendation from the Hillsborough County Planning Commission.
We believe that the standards and guidelines expressed in the enabling act provide an adequate framework for review by the courts to determine whether the administrative *774 agency has exceeded the authority granted it and is acting in a legislative capacity prohibited by the Constitution as opposed to an administrative capacity which is permissible. Our conclusion is buttressed by the able opinion of Judge Wigginton in the case of Safer v. City of Jacksonville, 237 So. 2d 8 (1st DCA Fla. 1970), wherein that court had under consideration the provisions of the Housing Code of the City of Jacksonville which permit the Board of Adjustment to vary the application of any provision of the Code to any particular case when, in its opinion, the enforcement thereof would do manifest injustice, and would be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the Code or public interest. At page 12 of the opinion it is stated:
Accordingly, we find Chapter 69-1651, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1969, not to be violative of Article II, Section 3, Florida Constitution.
The foregoing holding perhaps does not provide a precise mechanical formula, and therefore it is apparent that occasions will arise when the courts will be called upon to review the actions of boards of adjustment or appeal to determine whether they have exceeded the standards and guidelines imposed by the enabling act. However, we do not deem this an encroachment by the judiciary on the legislative function of zoning, a concern expressed by the trial court in its summary final judgment. The function of the judiciary simply will be to determine  as it does in the case of other administrative boards, commissions and agencies  whether the authority granted by the Legislature has been exceeded.
We do not reach nor is this decision intended to render any opinion with respect *775 to the merits of the action taken by the Board of Adjustment in the case at bar.
The summary final judgment herein is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
ROBERTS, BOYD and OVERTON, JJ., and MOORE, Circuit Judge, concur.
ENGLAND, J., dissents with an opinion, with which ADKINS, C.J., concurs.
ENGLAND, Justice (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The Board acquired its authority to grant use variances, if at all, in 1969.[1] A pre-existing delegation of variance authority to this Board had been construed to deny that very grant of power, despite express language in the law "permitting changes in the use of property."[2] In 1969 the Legislature amended the Board's variance statute to read (adding only the underscored language):
The change was intended, apparently, to overcome the prior denial of use variance authority.[3]
In my view, Josephson v. Autrey[4] teaches that no amendment to the law can give the Board the authority it seeks. The Legislature simply lacks power to delegate to this administrative board a legislative power which had already been properly and exclusively lodged in a municipality. To hold otherwise would allow unlimited, random rezoning.[5]
I would affirm the trial court's declaration that the amendments effected by Chapter 69-1651, Laws of Florida, are unconstitutional. This invalidation of that amendatory statute would leave to the Board only those variance powers set out in Chapter 63-1983, Laws of Florida, the act which the 1969 Legislature endeavored to amend.
ADKINS, C.J., concurs.
On consideration of the Petition for Rehearing filed by appellees, the Court has corrected its opinion filed December 10, *776 1975 and the Petition for Rehearing is addressed to the corrected opinion and is hereby denied.
OVERTON, C.J., and ROBERTS, BOYD and SUNDBERG, JJ., and MOORE, Circuit Judge, concur.
ENGLAND, J., would strike the Petition for Rehearing or disregard it, on the authority of Texas Co. v. Davidson, 76 Fla. 475, 80 So. 558 (1919).
ADKINS, J., would grant the petition for rehearing.
[1]  Although not necessary to our decision herein, it should be noted that Section 176.14, Florida Statutes, was repealed by Chapter 73-129, Laws of Florida.
[1]  Ch. 69-1651, Laws of Florida.
[2]  Clarke v. DiDio, 226 So. 2d 23 (2d DCA Fla. 1969), affirming an opinion of the Hillsborough County Circuit Court.
[3]  The trial judge found in his Summary Final Judgment that the amendment was enacted at the request of the Board after the decision in Clarke, supra n. 2.
[4]  96 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1957).
[5]  Despite the majority's assertion that "rezoning" can be controlled by judicial review of Board action, and that "the function of the judiciary simply will be to determine ... whether the authority granted by the Legislature has been exceeded," I am not persuaded that it is wise to place the courts in these proceedings even to that extent. The general problems inherent in judicial review of administrative agencies are likely to be exaggerated in these types of cases. For example, could we ascertain from a record on appeal whether the Board had exceeded its authority if this case were to return here with findings to the effect that Mr. Hobbs should be granted a permit to build his tearoom because (i) the tearoom is not contrary to the public interest taking into account the comprehensive zoning scheme reflected in the ordinance, (ii) his special conditions justify the variance, (iii) literal enforcement of the R-3 classification will cause him an unnecessary hardship, and (iv) substantial justice will be served by granting the variance?