OTTO S. BAKER AND BERTHA H. BAKER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 Bakers appealed a denial of their petition for certiorari challenging a county zoning decision. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the county's rezoning decision was reasonable and not subject to judicial second-guessing where the matter is fairly debatable or previously decided as res judicata.
The court affirmed the denial of the petition for certiorari. The RU-2 zoning for the North Kendall Drive strip was reasonable and fairly debatable, so the court would not substitute its judgment for the County Commission's. The RU-1 zoning for the remainder was res judicata, having been determined reasonable in the Bakers' previous appeal.
[1] A court will not substitute its judgment for that of a zoning commission when the zoning matter is fairly debatable.
[2] A prior judicial determination on the reasonableness of a zoning classification is res judicata as to subsequent challenges absent a substantial change in circumstances.
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“the question presented in this zoning matter being "fairly debatable", this court will not substitute its judgment for that of the County Commission”
Establishes the deferential standard of review for zoning decisions where the classification is fairly debatable
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMr. and Mrs. Baker owned property on North Kendall Drive in Miami-Dade County. In 1966, they obtained RU-SA zoning for the southeast corner. In 1969, …
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 Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
[*545] PER CURIAM.
Petitioner-appellants appeal an order denying their petition for certiorari seeking review of a denial of their application to rezone their property by the County Commission.
Appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Baker, are the owners of property on North Kendall Drive. In 1966 they made an application for business zoning on the subject property.
However, they succeeded only in procuring a change of zoning on the southeast corner thereof to RU-SA (semi professional office) to act as a buffer strip from existing business zoning to the east. In 1969 the Bakers again sought to have their property (excluding the southeast corner zoned to RU-SA in 1966) rezoned to RU-4L (limited apartment house).
The requested zoning was denied, but the County Commission by resolution rezoned the property to RU-1 (single family residential).
Appellants sought review thereof by filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the Circuit Court which denied the writ. Mr. and Mrs. Baker then appealed to this court (Baker v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 201) and we ordered that that portion of appellants’ property fronting on North Kendall Drive upon re-examination should be rezoned more liberal than RU-1. At about the same time, but prior to the County Commission acting on this court’s mandate, the appellants applied to the County Commission to rezone the subject property to RU-TH (townhouses).
At the zoning hearing the County Commission in compliance with the mandate of this court rezoned the southern strip of appellants’ property which borders North Kendall Drive from RU-1 to RU-2 and retained the RU-1 zoning of the remainder of the property. Thereupon, appellants filed the instant petition for writ of certiorari in the Circuit Court to review the above rezoning by the County Commission. The petition was denied and this appeal followed.
In Baker v. Metropolitan Dade, County, supra, we held that the RU-1 classification was a reasonable use with the exception of the strip of property fronting on North Kendall Drive and therefore ordered a zoning more liberal than RU-1. In compliance therewith, the County Commission by resolution rezoned the subject strip of property to RU-2. The record supports the reasonableness of the application of the RU-2 zoning classification to this strip of property. Thus, the question presented in this zoning matter being “fairly debatable”, this court will not substitute its judgment for that of the County Commission. See 35 Fla.Jur. Zoning Laws § 30 (1961) and cases cited therein.
As to the remainder of the Bakers’ property being zoned RU-1, this zoning classification has been determined to be reasonable by this court in appellants’ previous appeal and petitioners having failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances since our earlier ruling thereon, the matter is res judicata. See Metropolitan Dade County Board of County Commissioners v. Rockmatt Corporation, Fla.App.1970, 231 So. 2d 41 at 44.
Accordingly, the order herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. The Babcock Co., 410 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…; City of Miami Beach v. Prevatt, 97 So. 2d 473 (Fla.1957); Burger King Corporation v. Metropolitan Dade County, 349 So. 2d 210 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Taub v. Metropolitan Dade County, 296 So. 2d 566 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Baker v. Metropolitan Dade County, 296 So. 2d 544 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Metropolitan Dade County v. Crowe, 296 So. 2d 532 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Metropolitan Dade County Board of County Commissioners v. Rockmatt Corporation, 231 So. 2d 41 (Fla.3d DCA 1970). The doctrine [*652] “... is applicable to ruling…
Authorities Cited
- Metro. Dade Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs v. Rockmatt Corp., 231 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Otto S. Baker and Bertha H. Baker v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 237 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)