JOHN GUNN AND PETER H. WENDSCHUH, PETITIONERS,
v.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND CIUDAMAR YACHT CLUB, INC., 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.
Petitioners sought certiorari review of a special exception granted by the Dade County Commission for construction of a softball field at a private country club, arguing the approval was barred by administrative res judicata because a similar request had been denied two years earlier. The court held that res judicata does not bar a new zoning application when the proposal has been substantially modified, and the zoning authority has discretion to determine whether changed circumstances exist.
A prior zoning ruling is not binding when there has been a substantial change in circumstances, and the zoning authority has primary discretion to determine whether such a change has occurred. The commission's conclusion that repositioning the softball field constituted a meaningful alteration was within its discretion and not subject to res judicata.
[1] A prior zoning ruling is not binding when there has been a substantial change of circumstances.
[2] The determination of whether a substantial change of circumstances has occurred in a zoning matter lies primarily within the discretion of the zoning authority.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a prior zoning ruling is not binding when there has been a substantial change of circumstances and that the determination of whether such a change has in fact occurred lies primarily within the discretion of the zoning authority itself”
Establishes the primary legal principle that res judicata does not apply to zoning decisions when circumstances have substantially changed and the zoning authority retains discretion to assess whether such changes exist.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCiudamar Yacht Club sought a special exception to construct a softball field on its premises. A similar request had been denied two years earlier. The…
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 Administrative Res Judicata cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
This petition for certiorari seeks review of a circuit court affirmance of a special exception granted by the Dade County Commission for the construction of a softball field on premises operated as a private country club by the respondent Ciudamar. The primary contention is that the special exception was barred by the doctrine of administrative res judicata, as it applies to zoning cases such as this. Wayne v. City of Green Cove Springs, 261 So. 2d 827 (Fla.1972); Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co., 410 So. 2d 648, 651-654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and cases cited. We do not agree.
Although a generally similar request had been denied two years earlier, the new proposal differed from the first in repositioning home plate — at a greater distance from nearby residences — to a point where the outfield had been located, and vice versa. The definitive decision in Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co., supra, 410 So. 2d at 651-654, points out both that a prior zoning ruling is not binding when there has been a substantial change of circumstances and that the determination of whether such a change has in fact occurred lies primarily within the discretion of the zoning authority itself. See City of Miami Beach v. Prevatt, 97 So. 2d 473, 477 (Fla.1957) (Res judicata “should be applied in zoning cases with great caution.”).
Under these rules, we may not interfere with the commission’s implicit conclusion that the rearrangement of the field, which arguably reduced the noise and inconvenience to the neighboring homes, was a meaningful alteration of the proposal it had previously rejected. Closely on point is Freeman v. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, 61 A.D.2d 1070, 403 N.Y.S.2d 142 (1978), where the court, reflecting the Florida law expressed in Babcock, held:
Seeking a reversal of the judgment below, petitioners principally argue here that the approved application for a clinic is identical with an earlier application which was disapproved and, consequently, the board was without power to entertain the seeond application. We cannot agree. It is settled law that there can be a new application and determination by a zoning board when ‘ * * * new plans materially change the aspects of the case * * * ’ (Matter of Reed v. Board of Standards & Appeals, 255 N.Y. 126, 133, 174 N.E. 301, 303).
Moreover, it is for the board to determine whether or not changed facts or circumstances are presented and, in so doing, it may give weight even “to slight differences which are not easily discernible” (Ellsworth Realty Co. v. Kramer, 268 App.Div. 824, 49 N.Y.S.2d 512). In this instance, even petitioners concede that, in the approved application, the placement of the clinic on the lot was altered by rotating the structure 90° and the location of the parking lot was changed.
Accordingly, the board’s determination approving the in-tervenors-respondents’ proposal as a new application was clearly not arbitrary, and there was ample evidentiary support therefor in the record. Such being the case, the determination must be sustained (Burlinson v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Yonkers, 275 App.Div. 723, 87 N.Y.S.2d 412).
403 N.Y.S.2d at 143. See generally, An-not., Approval of Zoning Change — Prior Denial, 52 A.L.R.3d 494.(1973).
Accordingly, the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of the law in its judgment of affirmance and the petition is therefore denied. City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla.1982).
Certiorari denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delray Med. Ctr., Inc. v. State of Fla. Agency FOR Health Care Admin., 5 So. 3d 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…Further, the determination of whether a significant change in circumstances has occurred lies primarily within the discretion of the administrative agency. See, e.g., Miller v. Booth, 702 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Gunn v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 481 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). We disagree with appellants’ contention that Bethesda’s second applica [*30] tion should have been summarily denied based on administrative finality. This case is controlled by Thomson v. Department of Environmental Regulation,…
-
Miller v. Booth, 702 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…(1958), the determination of whether a substantial change in circumstances has occurred, precluding the applicability of the doctrine, lies primarily within the discretion of the zoning authority itself. Gunn v. Board of County Comm’rs, Dade County, 481 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)(citing Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co., 410 So. 2d 648, 651-54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)). In the instant case, we find that the Board of County Commissioners acted within its discretion when it determined that a substantial…
-
Hasam Realty Corp. v. Dade Cnty. & Robert Weisblum, 486 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…e which had been previously rejected so that the requested relief was barred by the doctrine of administrative res judicata; Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co., 410 So. 2d 648, 651-55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Gunn v. Board of County Commissioners, 481 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), and (b) in the light of the showing of the adverse impact of the proposed project upon nearby single family residential areas, see Allapattah Community Association v. City of Miami, 379 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), cert. denied…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1982)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Prevatt, 97 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1957)
- Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. The Babcock Co., 410 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Wager v. City OF Green Cove Springs, 261 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1972)