RAYAN CORPORATION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND JOSEPH B. REISMAN, TRUSTEE AND FAIRLAND, INC., APPELLEES
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.
Rayan Corporation, a liquor store owner, challenged a zoning variance that would permit a competitor to establish a nearby liquor store. The court held that a business owner has standing to challenge an adverse zoning decision affecting their business, and reversed the lower court's dismissal because the zoning variance itself was invalid.
A person owning a liquor business has the requisite standing to legally challenge a zoning decision that adversely affects their business by permitting the establishment of a nearby competitive liquor business. The owner has a legally recognized interest sufficient to confer standing to challenge the zoning authority's action.
[1] A person has standing to challenge a zoning decision if they have a legally recognizable interest that is or will be affected by the zoning authority's action.
[2] The owner of a liquor business has standing to challenge a zoning decision that permits the establishment of a nearby competitive liquor business.
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“a person has standing to legally challenge a zoning decision if he has 'a legally recognizable interest which is or will be affected by the action of the zoning authority in question.'”
Establishes the test for standing in zoning challenges, cited from Renard v. Dade County.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRayan Corporation owned the Cutler Ridge Liquor Store in Dade County, Florida. Appellees Reisman and Fairland, Inc. sought a zoning variance on proper…
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 Fairly Debatable Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
HUBBART, Judge.
The controlling issue raised by this appeal is whether a person owning a liquor business has standing to legally challenge a zoning decision which adversely affects his business by permitting the establishment of a nearby competitive liquor business. We hold that a person so affected has the requisite standing to legally challenge such a zoning decision.
The facts are undisputed. The appellant Rayan Corporation, Inc., owns the Cutler Ridge Liquor Store located at 20101 South Dixie Highway in Dade County, Florida. The appellees Joseph B. Reisman and Fair-land, Inc., own property approximately 550-600 feet away. The appellees sought a zoning variance on their property so that they could build a “Big Daddy’s” package liquor store and lounge thereon. Admittedly, the variance if granted would adversely affect the appellant’s liquor business.
The Dade County Zoning Appeals Board denied the appellees’ application for a zoning variance. On appeal, the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County reversed this decision and by resolution granted the requested zoning variance. The appellees now concede that the Board’s decision herein was not fairly debatable because no showing of a zoning hardship was ever made. Dade County v. Frank N’ Bun Operating Co., 169 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). The Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida denied the appellant’s petition for a writ of certiorari from the Board’s decision. This appeal follows.
The law is clear that a person has standing to legally challenge a zoning decision if he has “a legally recognizable interest which is or will be affected by the action of the zoning authority in question.” Renard v. Dade County, 261 So. 2d 832, 837 (Fla.1972). The owner of a liquor business, which is or would be affected by a zoning decision permitting the establishment of a nearby competing liquor store, has a legally recognized interest sufficient to confer upon the said owner requisite standing to legally challenge the action of the zoning authority in question. ABC Liquors, Inc., v. Skaggs-Albertson’s, 349 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). This established law is in accord with the well-settled rule that a liquor licensee has standing to legally challenge the grant of a liquor license to a business competitor solely on the basis of adverse economic competition. Keating v. State, 173 So. 2d 673, 675-676 (Fla.1965). To the extent that Skaggs-Albertson’s Properties, Inc. v. Michels Belleair Bluffs Pharmacy, Inc., 332 So. 2d 113, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) cert. den. 346 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1977), states a contrary rule, we decline to follow it.
The appellant is the owner of a liquor store whose business is or will be adversely affected by the zoning variance granted by the Dade County Board of County Commissioners and, accordingly, has the requisite standing to challenge the zoning decision herein. And the zoning variance itself is conceded by all parties to be invalid. In all fairness to the trial court, this concession did not come until oral argument before this court.
The decision of the circuit court below is, therefore, reversed with directions to grant the appellant’s petition for a writ of certiorari and quash the zoning resolution in question passed by the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Skaggs-Albertson's v. ABC Liquors, Inc., 363 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1978)…nate Baker as a competitor, this Court held that Hi-Hat had no special interest sufficient to sustain the suit. . We note that the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Rayan Corporation, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, 356 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), a case having substantially the same issue as the instant cause, concluded similarly to the district court herein. . Hillsborough County v. Twin Lakes Mobile Home Village, 166 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); Sarasota County v. Wa…
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. & Hill Bros., Inc. v. Reineng Corp., 399 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ssioners. . Reineng Corporation has standing to appeal the decision of the Dade County Commission under Skaggs-Albertson’s v. ABC Liquors, Inc., 363 So. 2d 1082 (Fla.1978) and Rayan Corporation, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, 356 So. 2d 1276 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). Metropolitan Dade County, the named appellee in Reineng’s suit in the appellate division of the circuit court, joined part one of the brief of Hill Bros. Inc., intervenor below and here appellant, challenging the standing of Reine…
-
Cole v. City OF Deltona, 890 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…which requires the party seeking the injunction to demonstrate that he or she has incurred special damages. See Exchange Invs., Inc. v. Alachua County, 481 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Rayan Corp., Inc. v. Board of County Comm’rs of Dade County, 356 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); see also Messett v. Cohen, 741 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (recognizing that the special damages standard applies to the issue of standing). Here, standing is not an issue, and the trial court should not have applied the speci…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Renard v. Dade Cnty., 261 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1972)
- Keating v. State of Fla. ex rel. Bernard Ausebel, 173 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1965)
- Skaggs-Albertson's Props., Inc. v. Michels Belleair Bluffs Pharmacy, Inc., 332 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Dade Cnty. v. Frank N' BUN Operating Co., Inc., 169 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Michels Belleair Bluffs Pharmacy, Inc. v. Skaggs-Albertson's Props., Inc., 346 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1977)
- ABC Liquors, Inc. v. Skaggs-Albertson's, 349 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)