Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/11/2004

Home

Page {5 -- February 10. 2004 However, the mere purchase of land without more did not create a fight to rely on existing zoning. The landowners could not ignore evolving and exist- ing land use regulations when they had not taken any steps in furtherance of developing their land. If a landowner did not start development prior to the enactment of the new land regulations, he or she acted at his or b_er own peril in relying on the ab- sence of zoning ordinances. Ultimately, a subjective expectation that land could be developed was no more than an expectancy and did not translate into a vested right to develop the property,. Citation: Monroe County v. Ambrose, Co~rr of Appeal of Florida, 3rd. District, Nos. 3D02-1716, 3D02-1754, 3D02-1800, & 3D02-2068 (2003). see also: Namon v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 558 So.2d 504 (1990). see also: Equity Reso,trces [nc. v. CounU of £eon, 643 So.2d Ill2 (1994). 120 Nonconforming Use -- Property owner leases land for use as a tavern Zoning changes change use fi'om nonconforming to conforming K,~xqSAS (12/12/03) -- In 1977, Morgan leased the property to Wiley for use as a tavern. ,~'ter that lease expired, Morgan leased the property to A/dershof. Morgan brought a suit to evict Aldershof on the grounds he had failed to oper- ate a tavern on the property. Morgan won the judg-ment and eventually had him evicted. Morgan then leased the property to the V.F.W. Wichita Memorial Post. The V.F.W. received a cereal malt beverage license for the next 10 years. The city amended its ordinances to prohibit taverns and dr/nldng estab- lishments within 200 feet of any church, public park, residential zoning dis- tri'ct, or public or parochial school. Although initially nonconforming, another zoning amendment to exclude fraternal organizations brought the use of the property back into conformance with the zoning code. When the V.F.W. moved to a new location, Morgan leased the property to himself to open a new pub. Although he received a state liquor license, the city refused to ~ve him one because the new zoning ordinance did nor 'allow drinking establishments on that property. Morgan sued, and the court ruled in favor of the city. Morgan appealed, arguing the use of the property as a tavern constituted a prior nonconforming use. DECISION': Att~rmed, Morgan did not establish his use of the property was a prior nonconform- ing use. At the time of the zoning change, the V.F.W. was leasing the propertyl The V.F.W.'s use of the property t'ully conformed [o the city's zoning regulations because ir was a fraternal organization.