Laserfiche WebLink
May 25, 2011 'Volume 51 No. 10 Zoning Bulletin <br />The court noted that Fla. Stat. § 163.3215(3) allowed aggrieved <br />persons to challenge decisions of local governments granting or de- <br />nying an application for a development order. <br />The court explained that a "development order," as defined by <br />statute (Fla. Stat. § 163.3164(7)), is: "any order granting, deny- <br />ing, or granting with conditions an application for a development <br />permit." A "development permit" includes: "any building permit, <br />zoning permit, subdivision approval, rezoning, certification, spe- <br />cial exception, variance, or any other official action of local gov- <br />ernment having the effect of permitting the development of land." <br />(Fla. Stat. § 163.3164(8).) Further, "development" means: "the car- <br />rying out of any building activity ... [or] the making of any mate- <br />rial change in the use or appearance of any structure or land." (Fla. <br />Sta. § 380.04(1).) On the other hand, noted the court, a "plat" is <br />simply: "a map or delineated representation of the subdivision of <br />lands, being a complete exact representation of the subdivision." <br />(Fla. Stat. § .177.031(14 ). ) <br />The court found that the .City, in approving PPI's plat, "only ap- <br />proved a map of the Park, but did not permit PPI to begin building <br />on the land or make any alternations to structures existing on the <br />land." The City's land development code required additional steps <br />before development could begin. <br />The court concluded that because PPI's plat was not a "develop- <br />ment order," under the relevant Florida statutory law, its approval <br />could not be challenged by the Residents. <br />Variance —Property Owner Seeks Variance <br />To Permit Him To Not Have a Garage On His <br />Property <br />City rejects variance request and orders construction of <br />garage <br />Citation: Cimino v. Cleveland Hts. Bd. of Zoning appeals, <br />2011-Ohio-1803, 2011 WL 1419646 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. <br />Cuyahoga County 2011) <br />OHIO (04/14/11)—This case details the factors that must be <br />considered and weighed in determining whether a property owner <br />has encountered a "practical difficulty" in the use of his property <br />sufficient to allow the issuance of a variance. <br />8 © 2011 Thomson Reuters <br />