Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />Connor appealed. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> <br />The decision of the lower court would be found proper if there was <br />"no genuine issue as to any material fact" and judgment in favor <br />of Cousins and Island Cabaret was entitled to them "as a matter of <br />law." The appeals court found that all of the findings of the lower <br />court were supported by the evidence in the record; the judgment was <br />affirmed. <br />The land use ordinance stated in relevant pan that: "An adjacent or <br />neighboring property owner who would be specially damaged by any <br />violation may...institute injunction...or other appropriate action or <br />proceeding to prevent the unlawfuL.. use, or to correct or abate the vio- <br />lation, or to prevent the occupancy of the building, structure or land." <br />Although Connor was a neighboring property owner, it could not prove <br />that it was "specially damaged." <br />Connors argued that allowing Island Cabaret to operate created <br />"adverse affects to its economic and property interests." However, the <br />appeals court noted that: "[G]enerally, persons whose only complaint <br />, [was] that the rezoning or grant of special permit or variance would cre- <br />ate competition with them in the conduct of their business have been <br />held not to have standing to litigate the validity of the zoning action." <br />Because the appeals court found that Connors lacked standing, it did <br />not need to address the rest of the claims in this case. <br /> <br />See also: Skaggs-AlbeTtson's v. ABC Liquors, Inc., 363 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. <br />1978). <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />188 <br />