PIERRE PICHETTE, ALAN YARKIN, AND GAYTAN MAYRAND TORRES, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF NORTH MIAMI AND PERFORMING ARTS MANAGEMENT OF NORTH MIAMI, INC., APPELLEES
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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a summary judgment dismissing a declaratory judgment action challenging a zoning ordinance, holding that the appellants lacked standing because they were sufficiently distant from the rezoned property and showed no genuine issue that they would be adversely affected by the ordinance.
The appellants lacked legally recognized standing to bring the declaratory judgment action because none of them could demonstrate that they had a legally cognizable interest that would be adversely affected by the zoning ordinance. Yarkin's location over a mile away across Biscayne Bay and the other appellants' locations 2,800-3,000 feet away with a 57-acre buffer, combined with the absence of any genuine issue that they would suffer noise, traffic, land value, or other adverse effects, precluded standing.
[1] A party lacks standing to challenge a zoning ordinance when they fail to demonstrate a legally recognized interest that will be adversely affected by the ordinance.
[2] A plaintiff residing over a mile away from a rezoned site, with no genuine issue of fact raised regarding noise, traffic impact, or land value diminution, lacks standing…
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 appellants herein have no legally recognized interest which will be adversely affected by the zoning ordinance of the City of North Miami which appellants challenged below, and therefore they lacked any standing to bring the declaratory judgment action”
The core holding establishing that lack of standing defeats the action
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants challenged a zoning ordinance of the City of North Miami. Appellant Allan Yarkin lives in Bay Harbor Islands, more than a mile across B…
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 Declaratory Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final summary judgment under review is affirmed upon a holding that the appellants herein have no legally recognized interest which will be adversely affected by the zoning ordinance of the City of North Miami which appellants challenged below, and therefore they lacked any standing to bring the declaratory judgment action because (1) the appellant Allan Yarkin fives in the City of Bay Harbor Islands, more than a mile across Biseayne Bay from the rezoned site under attack, and there is no genuine issue raised by this record that he would be affected by noise, traffic impact, land value diminution, or in any other respect by the subject zoning ordinance; and (2) the appellants Pierre Pichette and Gaytan Torres live in the City of North Miami Beach, separated by a 57-acre buffer area from the rezoned tract of land, 3,000 and 2,800 feet, respectively, away from said tract, and there is no genuine issue raised by this record that they would be affected by noise, traffic impact, land value diminution, or in any other respect by the subject zoning ordinance, Renard v. Dade County, 261 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1972); see § 163.-3215(2), Fla.Stat. (1993); Citizens Growth Management Coalition of West Palm Beach, Inc. v. City of West Palm Beach, Inc., 450 So. 2d 204, 208 (Fla.1984); compare Southwest Ranches Homeowner’s Ass’n v. Broward County, 502 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA) (adjoining landowners with potential pollution, flood problems had standing), rev. denied, 511 So. 2d 999 (Fla.1987).
This being so, it was entirely proper for the trial court to enter the summary judgment under review on the basis that there was no genuine issue of material fact and the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, given the appellants’ lack of standing to challenge the subject zoning ordinance. See Ennis v. Warm Mineral Springs, Inc., 203 So. 2d 514, 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967), cert. denied, 210 So. 2d 870 (Fla.1968).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
BAL Harbour Vill. v. City OF N. Miami, 678 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…ive any defense that Bal Harbour was estopped, or bound by res judicata, by reason of allowing Ordinance 888 to become final. In the meantime, other litigants filed lawsuits seeking to stop the amphitheater project. Pichette v. City of North Miami, 642 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Abramson v. City of North Miami, 634 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). In Pichette, one citizen of Bay Harbour Islands and two citizens of North Miami Beach filed suit contending that they would be adversely affected by noise and ot…
-
City OF Fort Myers v. Splitt, 988 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…was harmless error. Standing under the Renard special damages test is typically based on some impact on the litigant’s interest as an owner of property. See, e.g., Kagan v. West, 677 So. 2d 905, 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Pichette v. City of N. Miami, 642 So. 2d 1165, 1165-66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); State ex rel. Gardner v. Sailboat Key, Inc., 306 So. 2d 616, 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). There is no warrant for concluding that if the circuit court had applied the correct law, it would have determined that Mrs. Splitt et…
-
Save the Homosassa River Alliance, Inc. v. Citrus Cnty., 2 So. 3d 329 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…County, 890 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Putnam County Envtl. Council, Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 757 So. 2d 590, 592-93 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) Florida Rock Props. v. Keyser, 709 So. 2d 175, 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Pichette v. City of N. Miami, 642 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Sw. Ranches Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Broward County, 502 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Florida Rock, in my view, is a correct analysis of the statute. It tells us two things. Owning real property in the vicinity of the rezoni…
Authorities Cited
- Renard v. Dade Cnty., 261 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1972)
- Sw. Ranches Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Cnty. OF Broward, 502 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Citizens Growth Mgmt. Coal. of W. Palm Beach, Inc. v. City OF W. Palm Beach, Inc., 450 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1984)
- Ennis v. Warm Mineral Springs, Inc., 203 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Seaboard Air Line R.R. Co. v. City of Hawthorne, 210 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1968)
- Wissing v. Momar Constr. Co., 210 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1968)