From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sengra Corporation v. Metr. Dade Cty

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 8, 1985
476 So. 2d 298 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Summary

reviewing per curiam affirmance of circuit court appellate division and denying certiorari petition

Summary of this case from Granada Insu. Co. v. State

Opinion

No. 85-992.

October 8, 1985.

Petition from the Circuit Court, Murray Goldman, Moie, J.L. Tendrich, and Frederick N. Barad, JJ.

Greenberg, Traurig, Askew, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen Quentel and Timothy A. Smith, Miami, for petitioners.

Robert A. Ginsburg, County Atty., and Eileen Ball Mehta, Asst. County Atty., Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum Zavertnik and Paul A. Louis, Miami, for respondents.

Before DANIEL S. PEARSON, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.


Sengra Corporation submitted an application for rezoning of its 12.3 acre site in Miami Lakes from IU-C (Industrial Use Conditional) to RU-4A (Hotel Apartment House District) so that it could construct a 126-bed hospital. The Board of County Commissioners adopted a resolution denying the request, stating "that the [requested] rezoning would be in conflict with the principles and intent of the plan for the development of Dade County, Florida." The Planning Department's recommendation to deny rezoning was based primarily on two findings: (1) no demonstrated need for a new hospital in Dade County; and (2) concern expressed by the Aviation Department that aircraft noises from the nearby airport would have an adverse impact on the hospital.

The appellate division of the circuit court affirmed the denial without an opinion. Certiorari is brought to review the circuit court's per curiam affirmance.

Petitioners have not met their burden of showing that the reasonableness of the existing zoning classification is not fairly debatable. Broward County v. Capeletti Brothers, Inc., 375 So.2d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 385 So.2d 755 (Fla. 1980). That the requested rezoning is not consistent with a comprehensive development master plan was a valid basis for denying the request. Id. at 316; Wald Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 338 So.2d 863, 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 955 (Fla. 1977).

Certiorari denied.


Summaries of

Sengra Corporation v. Metr. Dade Cty

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 8, 1985
476 So. 2d 298 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

reviewing per curiam affirmance of circuit court appellate division and denying certiorari petition

Summary of this case from Granada Insu. Co. v. State

In Sengra Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 476 So.2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), we held that a grant of zoning for a use not consistent with the comprehensive land use plan was invalid, implicitly rejecting the notion that the statutes permitted a reviewing court to further consider the extent and degree of a clear inconsistency.

Summary of this case from Machado v. Musgrove
Case details for

Sengra Corporation v. Metr. Dade Cty

Case Details

Full title:THE SENGRA CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, REPUBLIC HEALTH…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Oct 8, 1985

Citations

476 So. 2d 298 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Citing Cases

St. Johns County v. Owings

Denial of a rezoning application which is inconsistent with a comprehensive plan adopted by a county or city…

Orange County v. Lust

In the present case, it is plain that the record contains competent, substantial evidence that would support…