B. S. ENTERPRISES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Special Exception cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
B. S. Enterprises, Inc., appeals a judgment in the circuit court denying its peti tion for writ of certiorari, which sought quashal of a zoning resolution of the Dade County Board of County Commissioners denying a petition of B. S. Enterprises, Inc., for a “special exception” for additional construction upon a non-conforming use.
The circuit court’s denial of the petition for writ of certiorari has not been shown to be a departure from the essential requirements of law and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. The Board of County Commissioners acting under the zoning regulations had the responsibility of determining whether the granting of the special exception would adversely affect the public interest. Cf. Rural New Town, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 315 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). See also Veal v. Leimkuehler, 249 S.W. 2d 491 (Mo.App.1952); Carroll Construction Company v. Kansas City, 278 S.W. 2d 817 (Mo.App.1955); and Dunbar v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, 387 S.W. 2d 164 (Mo.App.1965).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hemisphere Equity Realty Co., Inc. v. KEY Biscayne Prop. Taxpayers Ass'n, 369 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…the number of stories permitted, lot coverage, floor area, setbacks and accessory uses. “While we agree that there has been no showing of error in the granting of the ‘special exception’ challenged here, see B. S. Enterprises, Inc. v. Dade County, 342 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977); Ollos v. Dade County, 242 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1970); we reach a contrary conclusion concerning the ‘variances’ in question and therefore reverse those portions of the resolution which granted them. We do so simply because a…
-
Grefkowicz v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 389 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ome [*1043] for the aged as permitted under Section 33-13(e), Code of Metropolitan Dade County, the County Commission is charged with the duty of protecting the public interest. This court succinctly stated in B. S. Enterprises, Inc. v. Dade County, 342 So. 2d 117 (Fla.3d DCA 1977): “... The Board of County Commissioners acting under the zoning regulations had the responsibility of determining whether the granting of the special exception would adversely affect the public interest.. . . ” In considering the…1 / 2
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Fuller, 497 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…of Dade County v. First Free Will Baptist Church, 374 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Dade County v. Florida Mining & Materials Corp., 364 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So. 2d 467 (Fla.1979); B.S. Enterprises, Inc. v. Dade County, 342 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d [*1323] DCA 1977). It is specifically not subject to the variance-hardship requirement. Hemisphere Equity Realty Co. v. Key Biscayne Property Taxpayers Association, 369 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); 3 Anderson, American Law of Zoning §§ 21…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rural NEW Town, Inc. v. Palm Beach Cnty., 315 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)