KENNETH TREISTER, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI, ETC., RESPONDENT
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 certiorari review of a zoning denial, finding the merits fairly debatable based on surrounding area evidence, adverse staff recommendations, potential land use plan violations, and the applicant's failure to demonstrate economic hardship.
A zoning change denial is not subject to certiorari reversal when the merits are at least fairly debatable given the evidence and circumstances.
[1] A zoning denial is not subject to certiorari reversal when the merits are fairly debatable, considering surrounding area evidence, staff recommendations, land use plan co…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners applied for a zoning change for their property in Miami. The City Commission denied the application, and the circuit court affirmed that d…
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 Land Use Planning cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an application for certiorari review of the affirmance of a City of Miami Commission resolution denying an application for a change of zoning.
We conclude, in the light of the evidence concerning the surrounding area, the adverse recommendations of the City staff, the arguable violation 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. 2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Moviematic Indust. Corp. v. Board of County Comm’rs, 349 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); City of Miami v. Zorovich, 195 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), cert. denied, 201 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1967).
Hence, the circuit court decision before us, far from constituting a departure from the essential requirements of law as is required to sustain the landowner’s present position, City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla.1982), is in full accordance with them.
CERTIORARI DENIED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Treister v. City of Miami, 893 F. Supp. 1057 (S.D. Fla. 1992)
Authorities Cited
- City OF Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1982)
- Allapattah Cmty. Ass'n v. City OF Miami, 379 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- 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)
- 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)
- Hasam Realty Corp. v. Dade Cnty. & Robert Weisblum, 486 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)