In City of Tampa v. City National Bank, the 2d DCA upheld the circuit court's opinion (on 2d tier cert) that the City's zoning ordinance, rather than an applicable design guideline for an historic district, governed the height of a proposed building.
The facts are pretty simple: zoning allows high rises, property is also subject to architectural review with standards that include "scale: height and width," a 20 story building is proposed (next to an 11 story building and across side street from 2 story house) and rejected by architectural review board based on height.
The entire issue comes down to whether the architectural board could reject the building on that basis, and an interpretation that the zoning code's provision that the district regs govern height unless provided explicitly elsewhere. Both courts found that the architectural review code would allow consideration of height only in relation to the scale of the building, rather than to allow it to limit height.
I've seen some commentary that this is a major pro-property rights case, but the opinion doesn't read that way. This is a statutory interpretation case: both the circuit court and the 2d DCA rejected the City's contention that the architectural review ordinance authorized a limit on height. The courts (and the building) were able to point out other historic or overlay ordinances in the city that specifically limited height, and the 2d DCA was clear that a legislated standard that applied in an overlay or similar fashion district-wide would be valid. So the City can prevent other big buildings in the area with a fairly simple change to the ordinances.
Moreover, the 2d DCA recited all the usual language about its limited role in 2d tier cert review, and the more interesting question is not answered: what would the court have done in this case if the circuit court had upheld the city's denial on cert instead of overturning it?
Use the largest online attorney directory to quickly find detailed profiles of Florida lawyers and law firms in your area.
Thứ Hai, 9 tháng 7, 2007
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Bài đăng phổ biến
-
Here's an interesting opinion from Magistrate Judge Torres awarding defendants attorney's fees for opposing a copyright infringemen...
-
Hi kids, the heat is on and the bunker denizens are leading the way with their official 3d DCA summer pickle ball league -- judicial gentle...
-
Having been disappointed by several recent 11th Circuit opinions, I am pleased to see here a straightforward application of the "econo...
-
That old W.C. Fields line is ringing in my head, as the wind kicks up and rip tides batter the coast. I have to be honest, with the emerging...
-
Greenberg Traurig says it's not really necessary; Judge Middlebrooks says it is probably a good idea: In response, Plaintiff argues, in...
-
Shuster & Saben Defeats US Bank & Douglas Zahm PA in Foreclosure Appeal In 2011, firm attorney Richard Shuster obtained the dis...
-
Federal Rule Violation If you have been charged with USCA0024 FEDERAL RULE VIOLATION you can call a Defense Attorney Tampa at 1-877-793-9290...
-
Sheesh, does anyone have any news of any interest? Does it count that I saw Ervin rockin' some hard-core aviators outside the courthous...
-
Now that's a headline I thought I'd never write. Actually, it's a very unfortunate case involving a tourist who died riding a Ba...
-
Many of us have hired these guys as experts over the years, and I see the firm is merging and changing its name : South Florida's eight...
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét