HANG JU CHON, YUON SUP CHON AND CHANG S. CHON PETITIONERS,
v.
LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 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.
Property owners sought a writ of certiorari to overturn a county commission's denial of a conditional use permit to operate a water well and sell water wholesale on agricultural land. The court granted the petition, finding the circuit court failed to properly apply the standard of review established in Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder.
The circuit court's certiorari review was improper because it failed to apply the directives established in Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder. The writ of certiorari was granted to quash the county commission's order.
[1] A circuit court reviewing a county commission's denial of a conditional use permit by writ of certiorari must adhere to the directives of Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. …
[2] A county commission's denial of a conditional use permit must be supported by competent substantial evidence.
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“Lake County staff reviewed the application and found the proposed conditional use to be in compliance with all requirements, and to be consistent with the county's land development regulations, comprehensive plan, and zoning code.”
Establishes that the application met objective regulatory standards
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners, who own agricultural zoned property in Lake County, applied for a conditional use permit to install a well and sell water on a wholesale …
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 Development Regulations cases and more on FLexlaw
GOSHORN, Judge.
Petitioners, who own real property in Lake County, seek a writ of certiorari to quash an order entered by the circuit court in its review capacity. The circuit court denied their petition for writ of certiorari and thereby upheld the decision of respondent, the Lake County Board of County Commissioners, which denied their application for a conditional use permit.
The facts are not in dispute. Petitioners filed an application for a conditional use permit to allow them to place a well on their property and to sell the water produced from the well on a wholesale basis. Their property is zoned for agricultural use. Lake County staff reviewed the application and found the proposed conditional use to be in compliance with all requirements, and to be consistent with the county’s land development regulations, comprehensive plan, and zoning code.
The application was heard before the Lake County Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by a 6-3 vote. Subsequently, the application was heard before the county commission. In favor of the application, petitioners presented the testimony of the interim director of Lake County Planning and Development, the director of the Lake County Environmental Management Division, and a licensed professional geologist specializing in ground water hydrology. Although several of petitioners’ neighbors had written protest letters and appeared at the planning and zoning commission hearing, nobody in opposition appeared at the county commission hearing, and there was no evidence submitted against the proposed project. Nevertheless, the county commission voted 3-2 against granting the conditional use permit based on their own concerns.
The circuit court, in reviewing by certiorari the county commission’s vote, concluded that due process had been afforded, the county commission had adhered to the essential requirements of law, and its decision was supported by competent substantial evidence. Our review shows that the circuit court did not comply with the directives of the supreme court in Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla.1993). Accordingly we grant the petition and issue the writ.
GRANT PETITION; ISSUE WRIT.
PETERSON, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Proskauer Rose LLP v. Boca Airport, Inc., 987 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…nt which documents petitioner’s counsel thought were most relevant, which, along with the summaries it prepared for Wheeler’s deposition, were clearly work product and privileged attorney-client communication. See Smith v. Florida Power & Light Co., 682 So. 2d 696, 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). There has been no finding or any argument by Boca Aviation that it needed any of the work product information and that it could not obtain the substantial equivalent without undue hardship. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(3). Boca…
Authorities Cited
- Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Brevard Cnty. v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993)