IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
HISTORIC ROSER PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC.,
vs. Appeal No. 00-0395-CI-88A
CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT,
This cause came before the Court on the Second Amended Petition For Writ Of Certiorari, Petitioner’s Response to Suggestion of Mootness and the Respondent’s Reply thereon. Upon consideration of the same, the record, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court finds that the Petition is dismissed on the grounds of mootness.
In its Seconded Amended Petition for Writ of a Certiorari (Petition), the Petitioner contends that the Board of Adjustment (Board) erred in granting a variance and reinstatement for a dwelling unit located within the Roser Park neighborhood. (The property owner and applicant, Paul Hackman, is not a party to these proceedings). The variance and reinstatement had been granted by the Board subject to a series of conditions that had to be met within a specified time frame. During the pendency of this appeal, the variance and reinstatement granted by the Board became null and void due to the property owner’s failure to timely comply with the conditions imposed. Additionally, one dwelling unit subject to the variance and reinstatement at issue, has since been removed by the City of St. Petersburg.
Therefore, this appeal has become moot, as the issues presented by the Petitioner have ceased to exist and any judicial determination made by this Court would have no actual effect. See Goodwin v. State of Florida, 593 So.2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1992); see also Montgomery v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 468 So.2d 1014, 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)(stating that a case becomes moot, for purposes of appeal, where, by a change of circumstances prior to the appellate decision, an intervening event makes it impossible for the court to grant a party any effectual relief). It is the function of this Court to decide actual controversies by a judgment that can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions on moot questions, or to declare principles or rules of law that can not affect the matter in issue. See Montgomery, 468 So.2d at 1017. Furthermore, this appeal does not present any recognized exceptions to the general rule that a moot case will be dismissed. See Godwin, 593 So.2d at 212.
The Petitioner suggests, in the alternative, that this Court find the subject property is “single family and that no reinstatement of an abandoned use may be made by any Board, City Council or other body with respect to that single parcel.” However, even if this case could be decided on its merits, this Court’s certiorari review power is limited to either denying the Petition or quashing the order on review, and does not extend to directing that any particular action be taken. See City of Fort Pierce v. Dickerson, 588 So.2d 1080, 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(citations omitted).
It is therefore
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Second Amended Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is dismissed.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida this ________ day of December 2000.
CHARLES W. COPE
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division
Copies Furnished To:
F. Jewell, Esquire
Post Office Box 1930
St. Petersburg, FL 33731-1930
Attorney for Petitioner
D. Cichon, Esquire
Post Office Box 2842
St. Petersburg, FL 33731
Attorney for Respondent