Laserfiche WebLink
<br />August 15, 2007 I Volume 1 I No. 16 <br /> <br />maner was before the "wrong" board and told Kodogiannis that she <br />should apply for the extension as outlined procedurally in the law. <br />Kodogiannis sued the zoning board, claiming that it had erred when <br />it found that the local law at issue preempted it from granting use vari- <br />ances under these circumstances. The court agreed with Kodogiannis, <br />and, finding that her application for a variance met the statutory re- <br />quirements, granted her variance request. <br />The zoning board appealed. <br /> <br />Decision: Affirmed in part, reversed in part. <br /> <br />"The appeals court found that the lower COlli had correctly decided <br />on the matter of preemption. The preemption doctrine provided that lo- <br />cal governments could adopt local legislation as long as it was not in- <br />consistent with state law or the state constitution. The court noted that <br />zoning boards of appeal-although "creatures of state statute" them- <br />selves-were invested with the power to vary zoning regulations in spe- <br />cific cases in order to avoid unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties <br />arising from a literal application of the zoning law." <br />Because the legislature had vested this power in zoning boards, the <br />board here had jurisdiction over the use variance application even though <br />there was a different procedure laid out by the sign ordinance. A local law <br />could not divest the board of the authority granted to it by the legislature. <br />However, the lower court in this case did not have authority to ap- <br />prove Kodogiannis' variance request. For a variance to be granted, the <br />zoning board had to consider several factors, including a balanciil.g test <br />as to the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the COIDilllli""1ity <br />in granting the minimum variance necessary. The lower court should <br />have returned the case to the zoning board. <br />Because the zoning board did have the authority to approve or deny <br />the variance request, but did not have the opportunity to consider the <br />merits of Kodogiannis' application, the appeals court reversed the deci- <br />sion with regard to the variance and sent it back to the zoning board for <br />further proceedings. <br /> <br />Code-After updating code, county cites homeowner <br />for existing addition <br /> <br />Addition had been built over 20 years earlier <br /> <br />Citation: Castro v. Miami Dade County Code Enforcement, 2007 WL <br />2043443 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2007) <br /> <br />FLORIDA (07/18/07)-In 1983, Castro purchased a townhouse in <br />Miami-Dade County. At the time Castro purchased the home, it had <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />127 <br /> <br />