01/06/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page $ --December 10, 2004 Variances were essentially escape hatches. They were designed to correct maladjustments and inequities in the operation at' gpneral regulations. To deny a variance based on an original conditions benchmark, despite the fact that the neighborhood had evolved quite differently, would work an injus- tice because it would separate variance decisions from a community's contem- porary planning objectives. Even so, O'Toole had to prove she met the ordinance's cr/ter/a for a variance. Consequently, the board's decision would be afl/treed unless the evidence could show O'Toote's need for a variance was due to the unique circumstances Of her property in relation to the current condition of the neighborhood. see also: Isis Developers LLC v. Town of Wells, 836 A.2d _1285 (2003). Easement--Adjacent property owner seeks to eliminate easement Easeme~zt granted by prior owner to himself Citation: O~e Harbor Financial LM. v. Yynes Properties LLC, Court of AppeaI of Fgorida, 5th District, No, 5D03-3629 (2004) FLORIDA (10/15/04) -- One Harbor Financial Ltd. and Hynes Property LLC owned.adjoining parcels. Both companies bought their parcels t¥om the same remote grantor, Hoffenberg. During kris o?vnership of the land, Hoffenberg constructed a building on the parcel now owned by One Harbor. In an attempt to meet the then-existing zoning regulations, Hoffenberg executed an easement agreement that purported to con- vey a perpetual, non-exclusive easement tbr 13 parking spaces on the property now owned by Hynes. The easement had been in continuous use since that time. After Hynes bought the property, it filed an action to eliminate the ease- ment, so it could build a building that would encroach upon the easement area. The court ruled in Hynes's favor. One Harbor subsequently appealed, arguing justice demanded the ease- ment to continue. DECISION: ~Ulirmed, One Harbor did not have a valid easement. As tee simple owner of both properties, Hoffenberg did not possess the legal right to grant an easement over [tis own property. Consequently, the agreement was void from the beginning, and the court was under no obligation to discern the intent of the parties from language contained within an illegal contract. Althougt~ both parties stipulated the agreement ,,vas intended to create an easement, the court could ~ot simply issue a ruling without regard to estab- lished !aw. Although One Harbor urged the court ro employ [ts eqmtable pow- ~..,e ,.,~.~ to the intent or the ~g:t'eemenr in view of 15 years of uncon- tested u:~e .,.>f the property, such :~ remedy was hew>nd the court's power. Aith~u,.,,i; it :n~v ,:reate Lmfair results, the court determined it was clear no ~; ~:~04 :~.Lllrll~13 :"~t)l~snJl;g 5rouD. -~nv reg[ooucIIo[/ ;s :)roJlloltecl, For :nc)re nlorrrla[ioll 91eEse }3JJ :6~7'; .542-~}048. 100