Elwyn v. City of Miami
113 So. 2d 849 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A zoning variance based on 'unnecessary hardship' cannot be granted when the hardship is self-imposed, such as when a property owner purchases land with full knowledge of existing zoning restrictions and then claims those restrictions as the basis for the hardship.
Facts:
- The property in question, owned by Mary Loi, was located in an area of Miami that the city rezoned from R2 (duplex) to a more liberal R3 classification (apartment, hotel, motel).
- While Loi owned the property, Elgene, Inc. applied for a 'hardship' variance to build a gasoline service station, a use not permitted under the R3 zoning.
- Elgene, Inc. claimed hardship based on the neighborhood's changed character and the property's unsuitability for residential purposes.
- Helen M. Elwyn and Nelly Wilson, who owned adjoining properties, objected to the variance application.
- The City Planning & Zoning Board heard and denied Elgene, Inc.'s application for the hardship variance.
- After the denial, Elgene, Inc. purchased the property from Mary Loi.
Procedural Posture:
- Elgene, Inc. applied to the City of Miami Planning & Zoning Board for a hardship variance.
- The City Planning & Zoning Board denied the application.
- Elgene, Inc. appealed the denial to the City Commission of the City of Miami.
- The City Commission reversed the zoning board's decision and granted the variance by enacting Ordinance No. 6174.
- Helen M. Elwyn and Nelly Wilson filed a complaint in the circuit court (trial court) seeking to invalidate the ordinance.
- The circuit court granted a motion to dismiss the complaint.
- Elwyn and Wilson, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a zoning variance granted by a city commission on the grounds of 'unnecessary hardship' violate the law when the applicant purchased the property with full knowledge of the zoning restrictions and after its initial application for the same variance had already been denied?
Opinions:
Majority - Carroll, Chas., Chief Judge
Yes. A zoning variance is invalid when granted for a hardship that was self-imposed by the applicant. To justify a variance, an unnecessary hardship must be unique to the specific parcel of property and not a general condition of the neighborhood. Furthermore, a hardship is considered self-imposed, and thus not a valid basis for a variance, when an applicant purchases property with knowledge of the existing zoning restrictions. In this case, Elgene, Inc. not only purchased the property with full knowledge of the R3 zoning but did so after its initial application for a variance had already been denied by the zoning board. This act constitutes a classic self-created hardship, which cannot legally support the granting of a zoning variance.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the 'self-imposed hardship' rule as a significant barrier to obtaining zoning variances in Florida. The ruling prevents property purchasers and developers from speculating on land—buying it with restrictive zoning and then claiming hardship to secure a more profitable use. It reinforces the principle that variances are a tool for addressing unique, inherent limitations of a property, not for curing poor business decisions or accommodating purely economic desires. This decision protects the integrity of municipal zoning plans by ensuring that exceptions are granted only in truly exceptional circumstances, rather than becoming a routine path for circumventing established regulations.
