Petition
for Writ of Certiorari to Review Quasi-Judicial Action: Agencies, Boards, and
Commissions of Local Government: ZONING – Variance – Petitioners had the
burden to establish variance request met code criteria - competent substantial evidence in the record
to support denial of variance request – Petitioners failed to establish that
they would suffer a hardship without the variance – Petition denied. Andrade v. City of
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND
APPELLATE DIVISION
EUGENE ANDRADE and
GAIL ANDRADE,
Petitioners,
vs. Appeal No. 04-0044AP-88A
UCN522004AP000044XXXXCV
CITY OF
Respondents.
________________________________________________/
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and the Response. Upon consideration of the briefs, the record and being otherwise fully advised, the Court finds that the Petition must be denied as set forth below.
The
Petitioners, Eugene Andrade and Gail Andrade (Petitioners), seek review of the
Development Order, entered April 22, 2004, in which the Respondent, City of St.
Pete Beach, Florida (City), denied the Petitioners’ variance request. In reviewing the administrative action taken
by the City, the Court must consider whether the Petitioners were afforded
procedural due process, whether the essential requirements of law were observed
and whether the Order is supported by competent substantial evidence. See Haines City Community
Development v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 530 (
The record shows that the Petitioners own a single-family residence located at 2404-06 Sunset Way, St. Pete Beach, Florida. A metal pan roof supported by metal posts extends from the rear of the house over a patio. The Petitioners sought a variance to replace the metal pan roof with a two-story partially covered balcony in the same footprint as the existing metal pan roof, with the exception of a small covered walkway extension. The Petitioners requested a rear yard setback from 20 feet to 6.4 feet to construct the covered balcony. The Development Review Board unanimously denied the variance application. Upon hearing the Petitioners appeal, the City Commission upheld the Board’s decision in a 3 to 2 vote.
Before
this Court, the Petitioners argue that the City failed to observe the essential
requirements of law and that the Order is not supported by competent
substantial evidence. In reviewing this
issue, the Court finds that the Petitioners had the burden to establish the
requirements for the variance. See
Gomez v. City of
The
Court finds that there is competent substantial evidence in the record to
support the City’s decision and this Court is not permitted to reweigh the
evidence presented. See Heggs,
658 So.2d at 530; see also Town of
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is hereby denied.
DONE
AND ORDERED in Chambers, at
___________________________________
JOHN
A. SCHAEFER
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division
Copies furnished to:
Thomas E. Reynolds, Esquire
Timothy P. Driscoll, Esquire