ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
LIL' CHAMP, INC., 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 the petition for writ of certiorari, holding that the lower court's reversal of a zoning commission's order denying Lil' Champ's permit application was not subject to certiorari review under the narrow standard applicable to such cases.
A petition for writ of certiorari challenging a lower court's reversal of a zoning commission's permit denial is denied because the narrow scope of review does not support issuance of the writ.
[1] The narrow scope of review applicable to lower court decisions in zoning cases precludes issuance of a writ of certiorari absent a clear basis for review.
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 intelligenceLil' Champ applied for a permit to construct a facility and claimed in its application that the facility would have sales volumes of convenience goods…
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 Ordinance Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Petitions for Writ of Certiorari filed in these cases have been consolidated by the court and are denied. One of the lower court’s stated reasons for reversing the order of the commission was that the findings of fact upon which the commission’s order was based were unsupported by substantial competent evidence. The commission’s order found as fact that, in connection with its permit application, Lil’ Champ claimed that the subject facility would have sales volumes of both convenience goods and gasoline similar to its other store locations. The commission found that such data established that the planned facility would not meet the definition of a “service station” as defined in the applicable zoning ordinance.
Given this court’s narrow scope of review of lower court decisions in such eases, there is no basis for issuance of the writ. Education Dev. Ctr. v. City of West Palm Beach Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 541 So. 2d 106 (Fla.1989). As noted by the lower court, if respondent does not use the building in accordance with applicable zoning ordinances, petitioners1 will have an adequate remedy.
PETITION DENIED.
GOSHORN, GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . The standing of petitioners, White and Smith, has not been addressed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.M. v. State, 647 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1995)…PER CURIAM. We have for review T.M. v. State, 623 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), which cited as authority a case pending review in this Court, B.H. v. State, 622 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), aff'd in part, 645 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1994). We have jurisdiction, art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const., and approve the de…
Authorities Cited
- Educ. Dev. Ctr., Inc. v. City OF W. Palm Beach Zoning Bd. OF Appeals, 541 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1989)
- State v. Green, 541 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1989)