EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., D/B/A MY FIRST STEP CHILD DAY CARE CENTER, MARGIE L. BELLAMY, ALL SAC MERCANTILE, INC. D/B/A ARMY NAVY OUTDOORS, DAVID W. SPRING, AND THE ASSOCIATION FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
PALM BEACH COUNTY, 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.
Petitioners challenged a Palm Beach County rezoning decision for a prison work release facility and homeless shelter through a petition for writ of certiorari. The circuit court dismissed the petition based on lack of jurisdiction under section 163.3215, but the appellate court reversed, holding that petitioners are entitled to certiorari review for issues not based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan.
To the extent petitioners' challenge raised issues other than the consistency of the development order with the local comprehensive plan, petitioners are entitled to certiorari review. Section 163.3215 provides an exclusive remedy only for challenges based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan, not for other issues related to the rezoning.
[1] A challenge to a local government's development order based on inconsistency with the local comprehensive plan is exclusively reviewable under section 163.3215, Florida S…
[2] Challenges to a local government's development order on grounds other than inconsistency with the local comprehensive plan are reviewable by certiorari.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“to the extent Petitioners' challenge raised issues other than the consistency of the development order with the. local comprehensive plan, Petitioners are entitled to certiorari review”
Establishes the key holding that certiorari review is available for rezoning challenges not based on comprehensive plan inconsistency
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners rezoned property for use as a prison work release correctional facility and homeless shelter. Peti…
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 Trial De Novo cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners, each of whom resides or operates a business within the vicinity of a piece of property which the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners rezoned for use as a prison work release correctional facility and homeless shelter, sought review of the rezoning decision by filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the Palm Beach County circuit court, appellate division. The circuit court denied their amended petition solely on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction pursuant to section 163.3215, Florida Statutes (1995), citing Poulos v. Martin County, 700 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding that section 168.3215 provides for de novo trial, not certiorari review, where adversely affected party seeks injunctive or other relief to prevent a local government from acting on a development order that alters the use of property in a way that is not consistent with the comprehensive plan).
The respondent concedes that, to the extent Petitioners’ challenge raised issues other than the consistency of the development order with the. local comprehensive plan, Petitioners are entitled to certiorari review. See Board of County Comm’rs of Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469, 474 (Fla.1993) (noting that rezoning actions with limited impact generally are quasi-judicial and reviewable by certiorari); Turner v. Sumter County, Bd. of County Comm’rs, 649 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (affirming in part and reversing in part circuit court’s dismissal of petition for certiorari from county’s decision to award mining license; to extent claimant’s challenge was that issuance was contrary to local comprehensive development plan, claimant should have pursued case under section 163.3215; but to extent claimant raised other issues, claimants were limited to certiorari review); Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Seminole County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 623 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (affirming dismissal of appellant’s complaint, where portion of complaint asserting inconsistency with comprehensive plan should have been by action under section 163.3215 and appellants failed to comply with requirement of filing verified complaint within thirty days, and where challenge that rezoning violated Wekiva River Protection Act was limited to certiorari review, for which complaint was untimely filed), rev. denied, 634 So. 2d 622 (Fla.1994).
To the extent Petitioners’ challenge was not based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan, the circuit court’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction over their amended petition for certiorari relief denied them procedural due process. Accordingly, we grant the petition, quash the order on review, and direct the circuit court to exercise jurisdiction over those issues raised by Petitioners which are not exclusively reviewable by an action under section 163.3215.
GUNTHER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Coconut Creek v. City OF Deerfield Beach, 840 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…. City of Delray Beach, 636 So. 2d 12, 15 (Fla.1994). Consequently, review other than on a consistency challenge is limited to certiorari, and the trial court properly dismissed counts II and III. See id.; Educ. Dev. Ctr., Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 721 So. 2d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Keller v. Town of Palm Beach, 707 So. 2d 429, 429-30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Grace v. Town of Palm Beach, 656 So. 2d 945, 945-46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).6 However, since these dismissals were not adjudications on the merits of th…
-
Thomas v. Suwannee Cnty., 734 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…-judicial, “to the extent [the objecting neighbors’] challenge raised issues other than the consistency of the development order with the local comprehensive plan, [they] are entitled to cer-tiorari review.” Education Dev. Ctr. v. Palm Beach County, 721 So. 2d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). See Cook v. City of Lynn Haven, 729 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding certiorari appropriate where zoning violation alleged); Turner, 649 So. 2d at 276-77; Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v.…
-
Stranahan House, Inc. v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 967 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…hood compatibility provisions of the comprehensive plan. Such claims must be filed as a declaratory judgment action pursuant to section 163.3215(3) and are not properly part of the petition for review. See Educ. Dev. Ctr., Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 721 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Cook v. City of Lynn Haven, 729 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Those issues were raised in the declaratory judgment complaint and addressed in the appeal of that order of dismissal. Thus, our resolution of this case excludes th…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Brevard Cnty. v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993)
- The Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. The Seminole Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 623 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Poulos v. Martin Cnty. & Pinecrest Lakes, Inc., 700 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Turner v. Sumter Cnty., 649 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)