HASAM REALTY CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
DADE COUNTY AND ROBERT WEISBLUM, 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.
Hasam Realty sought certiorari review of a Dade County Commission denial of its zoning change application. The Florida appellate court affirmed the denial, finding the commission could rely on administrative res judicata doctrine and that the merits of the zoning decision were at least fairly debatable.
The commission's denial was proper and the circuit court's affirmance was lawful because the commission could find under administrative res judicata that there were no significant differences between the instant application and a previously rejected one, and alternatively, the merits of the zoning decision were at least fairly debatable given the adverse impacts, comprehensive plan violations, and failure to show economic hardship.
[1] A zoning change application may be denied based on the doctrine of administrative res judicata if it presents no significant differences on vital issues compared to a pre…
[2] A zoning decision is permissible when the proposed project has an adverse impact on nearby residential areas, violates a comprehensive development plan, and fails to demo…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the commission could properly have found, in its discretion, that there were no significant differences as to the vital issues of density, traffic, and the like, between the instant application and one which had been previously rejected so that the requested relief was barred by the doctrine of administrative res judicata”
Establishes the first independent ground for denying the zoning change application under the doctrine of administrative res judicata.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHasam Realty applied for a zoning change for its property in Dade County. A previous application for similar relief had been rejected. The proposed pr…
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
PER CURIAM.
The landowner seeks certiorari review of the affirmance of a Dade County Commission resolution denying its application for change of zoning.
The record shows both that (a) the commission could properly have found, in its discretion, that there were no significant differences as to the vital issues of density, traffic, and the like, between the instant application and one 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, 386 So. 2d 635 (Fla.1980) and cases cited, the apparent violation of the Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan it would entail,1 and the total failure to demonstrate that the property could not be economically employed if the proposal were rejected, see City of Miami v. Zorovich, 195 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), cert denied, 201 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1967), the merits of the issue were at least2 “fairly debatable.” Dade County v. Inversiones Rafamar, S.A., 360 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); 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 substantial questions of whether such a violation in fact existed, see § 163.3194, Fla.Stat. (1983); Citizens Growth Management Coalition of West Palm Beach, Inc. v. City of West Palm Beach, 450 So. 2d 204 (Fla.1984), and, if it did, of whether the adoption of the proposal would be precluded as a matter of law. See § 163.3161(5), Fla.Stat. (1983); Marracci v. City of Scappoose, 26 Or.App. 131, 552 P. 2d 552 (1976); Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. Mayor and Council of Rockville, 272 Md. 550, 325 A. 2d 748 (1974).
. Id.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ST. Johns Cnty. v. Owings, 554 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…a new environmental study had been made, the court held res judicata did not apply. It quashed the First District’s ruling that applied res judicata. In my view, the present case is similar to the zoning matter in Hasam Realty Corp. v. Dade County, 486 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. dismissed, 492 So. 2d 1332 (Fla.1986). There, the zoning commission denied the rezoning application and such denial was affirmed by both the trial court and the District Court. The Third District held that the zoning commission c…
-
Treister v. City OF Miami, 537 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…olation of the applicable land use plan, and the failure to show that the property could not be economically used if the proposal were not adopted that the merits of the question were at least fairly debatable. See Hasam Realty Corp. v. Dade County, 486 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review dismissed, 492 So. 2d 1332 (Fla.1986); Allapattah Community Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Miami, 379 So. 2d 387, 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 635 (Fla.1980); Dade County v. Inversiones Rafamar, S.A., 360 So. 2…
-
Lake Sana Developments, LLC v. Miami-Dade Cnty. (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…have been exhausted.”); impact of the proposed project” upon the adjacent community, the circuit court held that the evidence adduced in the quasi-judicial proceeding below sustained the denial of the application. Hasam Realty Corp. v. Dade Cty., 486 So. 2d 9, 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (citing Allapattah Cmty. Ass’n v. City of Miami, 379 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)); see Metro. Dade Cty. v. Blumenthal, 675 So. 2d 598, 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (“[C]itizen testimony in a zoning matter is perfectly permissible a…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. The Babcock Co., 410 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Allapattah Cmty. Ass'n v. City OF Miami, 379 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Citizens Growth Mgmt. Coal. of W. Palm Beach, Inc. v. City OF W. Palm Beach, Inc., 450 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1984)
- 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)
- Williams v. Bray, 201 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1967)
- Schack v. Fourth Dist. Court OF Appeal of Fla. & Edward W. Starr, 201 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1967)
- Dade Cnty. v. Inversiones Rafamar, 360 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Cooper v. State, 360 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Gunn v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 481 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)