Case Name: Luis HERRERA, et al., Petitioners, v. CITY OF MIAMI, a Florida municipal corporation; and Juan M. Delgado, as General Partner of Vizcatran, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-06-23
Citations: 600 So. 2d 561
Docket Number: No. 91-2878
Parties: Luis HERRERA, et al., Petitioners, v. CITY OF MIAMI, a Florida municipal corporation; and Juan M. Delgado, as General Partner of Vizcatran, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, Respondents.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 600
Pages: 561–565

Head Matter:
Luis HERRERA, et al., Petitioners, v. CITY OF MIAMI, a Florida municipal corporation; and Juan M. Delgado, as General Partner of Vizcatran, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, Respondents.
No. 91-2878.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
June 23, 1992.
John G. Fletcher, South Miami, for petitioners.
Ferrell, Cardenas, Fertel & Morales and Alberto R. Cardenas and A. Vicky Leiva and Alicia Morales, Miami, for Juan M. Delgado.
A. Quinn Jones, III, City Atty., and Warren Bittner, Asst. City Atty., for City of Miami.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
CORRECTED OPINION
FERGUSON, Judge.
In land-use law, a variance seeker must demonstrate an exceptional and unique hardship to the individual landowner not shared by other property owners in the area. Nance v. Town of Indialantic, 419 So.2d 1041 (Fla.1982). A variance which permits a use not authorized by existing zoning restrictions for a neighborhood is not justified unless no reasonable use can be made of the land without the variance. Bernard v. Town Council of Palm Beach, 569 So.2d 853 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). See also Metropolitan Dade County v. Betancourt, 559 So.2d 1237, 1239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) ("Where land is zoned for residential use, deprivation of all beneficial use is proved only when it is established by competent evidence that the land cannot be used for any of the purposes permitted in such district"); Town of Indialantic v. Nance, 485 So.2d 1318, 1320 (Fla. 5th DCA) ("the hardship must be such that it renders it virtually impossible to use the land for the purpose for which it is zoned"), rev. denied, 494 So.2d 1152 (Fla.1986); Thompson v. Planning Comm'n, 464 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (hardship may not be found unless there is a showing that under present zoning no reasonable use can be made of property).
The petitioners own single-family residential properties across the street from the site which the respondent seeks to develop. They made a showing that construction of the proposed multi-unit complex with inadequate parking facilities would burden their property and the road between the parties' properties with overflow parking from the respondent's property, thereby creating unsightly clutter and congestion.
The planning staff for the City of Miami recommended a denial of the developer's request for a variance for the reason that no legal hardship existed. The Zoning Board agreed and denied the variance. On a 3-2 vote the City Commission rejected the planning recommendation and reversed the Zoning Board's denial of the variance. The circuit court, appellate division, affirmed, holding that there was competent and substantial evidence to support the City Commission's finding that "[i]f the building is built and the parking variance granted, the traffic problem in the area would not be aggravated nor the neighborhood changed."
Nowhere in the circuit court's eight-page opinion is there the critical finding that, without the variance, it is virtually impossi ble to use the land as it is presently zoned. Neither is there a finding that any alleged hardship was not created by the applicant.
There are three interrelated reasons why the variance to substantially reduce parking-space requirements should not have been granted: (1) the petitioner for the variance is the developer; the landowner made no claim or demonstration of hardship; (2) the only argument of hardship was that the specific 100-unit federally-sponsored project for the elderly might not qualify for financing absent the variance; and (3) there was no showing whatever that the project could not be reduced in size to satisfy zoning conditions or that the land could not yield a reasonable return if used as authorized by present zoning restrictions for another project.
As neighboring property owners, the appellants had a right to rely on existing zoning conditions and they had a right to a continuation of those conditions in the absence of a showing that a variance was necessary. Friedland v. City of Hollywood, 130 So.2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). On review of an administrative grant of a zoning variance, the standard is not whether variances have been granted to similarly-situated applicants in the community, or whether the grant of the variance would have a deleterious impact on the surrounding area.
Neither is it sufficient, for the purpose of placing this case beyond review by certiora-ri, that the circuit court incanted principles of law generally governing cases of this type. We must next determine whether that law has been correctly applied to the facts as they appear in the record. See Bernard v. Town Council of Palm Beach, 569 So.2d 853 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (held, on certiorari review, that circuit court was required to determine whether landowner presented competent substantial evidence that no reasonable use can be made of property absent the variance). Where, as here, factual findings made by the circuit court do not satisfy the legal requirements for a variance, the application must be denied. Thompson v. Planning Comm'n, 464 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Certiorari granted; the order granting a variance is quashed.
SCHWARTZ, C.J., concurs.
. Section 1901, City of Miami Zoning Ordinance provides:
A variance is relaxation of the terms of the ordinance where such action will not be contrary to the public interest and where, owing to conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of actions of the applicant, a literal enforcement of this ordinance would result in unnecessary and undue hardship on the property.