MARCA, S.A., A PANAMA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Marca, a Panama corporation, sought certiorari review of Dade County's denial of its application to rezone a 320-acre agricultural tract for residential and commercial use. The Florida Supreme Court quashed the appellate court's prior decision allowing supplementation of the certiorari record and remanded for reconsideration under the proper standard that certiorari records must be confined to proceedings below.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of certiorari, holding that Marca failed to meet its burden of showing the rezoning application presented a non-debatable issue. The rezoning application was fairly debatable, and thus the County Commissioners' denial was within their discretion.
[1] A record in certiorari proceedings must be confined to the proceedings below.
[2] A party seeking relief from a zoning resolution bears the extraordinary burden of showing that the application for rezoning raised a matter that was not a fairly debatabl…
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 burden of a party seeking relief from a zoning resolution is an extraordinary one which places upon the petitioner the duty to show from the record before the trial court that the application for rezoning raised a matter which was not a fairly debatable issue before the legislative authority”
States the governing legal standard for certiorari review of zoning denials, establishing the high bar petitioner must meet
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarca owned a 320-acre tract in southwest Dade County zoned for agricultural and interim use (GU and EU-1). It applied for rezoning to permit single-f…
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.
PER CURIAM.
In this case, appellant sought review of an order denying certiorari on an order of the Dade County Board of County Commissioners, denying a change of zoning. We reversed the order and held that the record on certiorari should be supplemented to include a zoning change on a tract of land larger than the appellant’s and in the same area, granted two weeks after the denial of the appellant’s application, so that the trial court would have all of the relevant facts before it.1 Subsequently, the Florida Supreme Court granted certiorari, quashed our decision, holding that the record in certiorari must be confined to the proceedings below and remanded the cause for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.2
We adopt the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court denying supplementation of the record, and we answer the remaining question on appeal as follows:
The land in question, is a 320-acre tract located in southwest Dade County, zoned GU and EU-1, agricultural and interim use. The appellant sought a change of zoning in a manner it claimed to be compatible with the surrounding development, namely single family, townhouse and apartment house use. The planning department and the building and zoning department recommended denial of the application. The zoning appeals board recommended approval. The board of county commissioners denied the application and stated in its resolution that the requested changes would be incompatible with the neighborhood and would be in conflict with the principles and intent of the plan for the development of Dade County. The circuit court denied certiorari.
We have studied the record, and we agree with the trial court’s ruling that the burden of a party seeking relief from a zoning resolution is an extraordinary one which places upon the petitioner the duty to show from the record before the trial court that the application for rezoning raised a matter which was not a fairly debatable issue before the legislative authority. Smith v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 281; Metropolitan Dade County v. Kanter, Fla.App. 1967, 200 So. 2d 624, 626. The record demonstrates that this burden was not sustained and that the application for rezoning was fairly debatable. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in denying certiorari.
The order denying certiorari is affirmed.
. See Marca, S. A. v. Dade County, Fla.App.1974, 304 So. 2d 461.
. See Dade County v. Marca, Fla.1976, 326 So. 2d 183.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dade Cnty. v. Yumbo, 348 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…Board of County Commissioners, 260 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1972); Metropolitan Dade County v. Crowe, 296 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1974); Metropolitan Dade County v. Fletcher, 311 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1975); Marca, S.A. v. Dade County, 332 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1976). See also: Renard v. Dade County, 261 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1972). Therefore, we find that the trial court erred in holding that the fairly debatable rule had been replaced by the substantial competent evidence rule in zoning cases…
-
Dade Cnty. v. United Res., Inc., 374 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…rns the disposition of this matter. Dade County v. Inversiones Rafamar, S.A., 360 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Dade County v. Yumbo, S.A., 348 So. 2d 1392 [392] (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Dade County v. Marca, S.A., 331 So. 2d 142 [Marca v. Dade County, 332 So. 2d 142] (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The Court finds that the adoption of Zoning Resolution No. Z-321-75 bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals and welfare and is constitutionally valid. See, City of Miami Beach v. Weiss, 217 So. 2d 8…1 / 2
-
Dade Cnty. v. Beauchamp, 348 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…relief from a zoning resolution is an extraordinary one which places upon the petitioner the duty of showing from the record before the trial court that the zoning ordinance challenged is no longer fairly debatable. See Marca, S. A. v. Dade County, 332 So. 2d 142 (Fla.3d DCA 1976) and cases cited therein. In attempting to determine what constitutes fairly debatable, our Supreme Court has indicated that the debate must be upon grounds that “make sense”. City of Miami Beach v. Lachman, 71 So. 2d 148 (Fla.1953)…
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
- Smith v. City OF Miami Beach, 213 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Kanter, 200 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Dade Cnty. v. Marca, 326 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1976)
- Marca, S.A. v. Dade Cnty., 304 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)