GARDEN STATE PROPERTIES, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied a petition for writ of certiorari challenging a county commission's denial of a rezoning application, holding that administrative res judicata barred the application, the denial was supported by substantial evidence, and the zoning was not confiscatory.
The County Commission properly denied the rezoning application based on administrative res judicata, and even if circumstances had changed, the denial was supported by substantial competent evidence and was not confiscatory.
[1] Administrative res judicata bars a rezoning application when no change of circumstances has occurred since a prior denial.
[2] Zoning that prevents economically optimal use of property but leaves beneficial use intact is not confiscatory.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGarden State Properties sought rezoning of property in Dade County, Florida, but the County Commission denied the application, finding no change of ci…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Zoning Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We deny the petition for writ of certiorari filed by Garden State Properties, Inc. upon a holding that (1) the County Commission was amply justified in finding that there was no change of circumstances which would avoid the application of administrative res judicata as a bar to petitioner’s application for rezoning, Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. The Babcock Company, 410 So. 2d 648 (Fla.3d DCA (1982); (2) even if, arguendo, the Commission had found a change of circumstances, the Commission’s denial of the petitioner’s application was supported by substantial competent evidence, and the decision of the Commission fairly debatable, Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. The Babcock Company, supra; Dade County v. Inversiones Rafamar, S.A., 360 So. 2d 1130 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Movie-matic Industries Corp. v. Board of County Commissioners of Metropolitan Dade County, 349 So. 2d 667 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Dade County v. Yumbo, S.A., 348 So. 2d 392 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); County of Brevard v. Woodham, 223 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); (3) nor does the existing zoning on the property deprive the petitioner of its beneficial use so as to be confiscatory, notwithstanding that the petitioner may be prevented from using such property in a manner which is economically most advantageous to it, City of Miami v. Zorovich, 195 So. 2d 31 (Fla.3d DCA 1967); Waring v. Peterson, 137 So. 2d 268 (Fla.2d DCA 1962).
Certiorari denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fred and Bonita Bensch v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 541 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…Ratner, 497 So. 2d 672, 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (“A taking occurs only where an owner is deprived of all reasonable and beneficial use of the property involved.”), review denied, 508 So. 2d 15 (Fla.1987); Garden State Properties, Inc. v. Dade County, 410 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); City of Miami v. Zorovich, 195 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), cert. denied, 201 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1967). (b) There was no showing that the plaintiffs had attempted to or could not achieve their desired use of the land in question b…
-
Hasam Realty Corp. v. Dade Cnty. & Robert Weisblum, 486 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…); Moviematic Industries Corp. v. Board of County Commissioners, 349 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Since the courts may not interfere with a zoning decision on either of these bases, let alone both, see Garden State Properties, Inc. v. Dade County, 410 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), the circuit court’s affirmance of the commission’s action was in full compliance with the essential requirements of the law. Certiorari denied. . In the present posture of the case, it is unnecessary to decide the substantia…
Authorities Cited
- Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. The Babcock Co., 410 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- MPS Indus., Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union NO. 769, 223 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Rutherford v. State, 349 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Miami Gray Line Boats, Inc. v. Madison Sales Corp., 195 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- The City OF Miami v. Zorovich, 195 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Dade Cnty. v. Yumbo, 348 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Waring v. Peterson, 137 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Dade Cnty. v. Inversiones Rafamar, 360 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Cooper v. State, 360 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)