Metropolitan Dade County Bd. of County Com'rs v. Rockmatt Corp.

• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Before PEARSON; CHARLES CARROLL
• Citation: Metropolitan Dade County Bd. of County Com'rs v. Rockmatt Corp., 231 So.2d 41 (Fla. App. 1970)
• Decision Date: 03 February 1970
• Docket Number: No. 69--375,69--375
• Parties: METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, etc., et al., Appellants, v. ROCKMATT CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

Page 41

231 So.2d 41

METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, etc., et al., Appellants, v. ROCKMATT CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69--375.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 3, 1970.

Thomas C. Britton, County Atty., and St. Julien P. Rosemond, Asst. County Atty., for appellants.

Goodman & Holtzman, Thomas A. Testa, Richard Kanner, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

CHARLES CARROLL, Judge.

The appellee Rockmatt Corp. sought a license from Dade County to operate a night club at a designated location in the county outside the limits of a municipality. In order for its premises to meet the requirements for a night club Rockmatt needed to obtain a special exception to allow a prohibited enlargement of an existing building in which it operated a liquor bar as a nonconforming use, and also a special permit, in the nature of a variance, to operate a night club in an area in which the zoning applicable thereto did not authorize night clubs. ¹

The Dade County Zoning Appeals Board, after a noticed hearing, denied the application for the exceptions, and Rockmatt appealed to the County Commission. The latter, after further hearing, upheld the ruling of the Zoning Appeals Board and denied the application, by resolution Z--34--68, dated February 29, 1968. ²

Rockmatt instituted a proceeding in the circuit court on March 22, 1968, seeking reversal of the County Commission's resolution. Twice motions of the defendants to dismiss were granted with leave to amend. The second amended complaint in the circuit court did not challenge the discretionary rulings of the zoning board and the commission which had rejected Rockmatt's applications for special exceptions, but presented the contention that its application for the night club license had been denied by the County Commissioners on the ground that its business establishment was within 2,500 feet of a church by straight line measurement as provided for in the county's regulatory ordinance and that such restriction was invalid in that it was in conflict with the state statute (§ 561.44(2) Fla.Stat., F.S.A.), which, in providing that such licenses should not be granted where the business establishment was within 2,500 feet of a church or school, specified that the distance should be measured by the route of ordinary pedestrian travel along public thoroughfares from the entrance of the place of business to the main entrance to the church or in the case of a school the nearest point of the school grounds. ³

The defendants filed an answer incorporating a motion to dismiss. They denied the allegation that the Commission had rejected Rockmatt's application on the ground that its establishment was within 2,500 feet of a church when measured in a manner provided for in the county's ordinance, and averred that the action of the Commission was denial of the special permits which the plaintiff had requested. See footnote 2. The defendants averred their regulation of such businesses was under subsection 12 of section 1.02(A) of the Dade County Home Rule Charter, conferring authority to 'Establish, co-ordinate, and enforce zoning and such regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public,' and subsection 16 of that section of the charter, empowering Dade County to 'Establish and enforce regulations for the sale of alcoholic beverages in the unincorporated areas.'

The answer then called attention to the county's ordinance (§ 33--150(B) of the Dade County Code), which prohibits such establishments within 2,500 feet of a church or public school, and provides for measurement of the distance 'by following a straight line from the front door of the proposed place of business to the nearest point of the church structure,' and in the case of a school to the nearest point of the school grounds.

On March 6, 1969, after final hearing, the trial court entered the judgment from which the defendants took this appeal. Therein it was ordered and adjudged as follows:

'1. That Article X, Section 33--150(B)(1) and (2) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, be and the same is hereby declared invalid, as the same is in direct contravention of Section 561.44(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., in so far as the statute provides for distance between churches, schools, and liquor establishments to be measured by ordinary pedestrian travel, whereas the Metropolitan Code provides for the measurement by following a straight line.

'2. That this Order is not to be construed as an order commanding the Dade County Board of County Commissioners to grant an unusual use for a night club since the denial of such use was not in issue.'

As shown by the judgment, the trial court noted that its ruling invalidating the ordinance, because it enlarges slightly on the minimum distance which the state law requires must exist between such an establishment and a church or school, was not to be construed to entitle the plaintiff Rockmatt to a night club license at its said location, in view of the denial by the County Commission of Rockmatt's request for the needed special permits, and the judgment did not reverse or disturb the ruling of the Commission relating to the special permits. ⁴

The appellants argue that the denial by the Board of County Commissioners of the application for special permits was proper, not only on the merits of the application, but because the matter was res judicata. It was stipulated at the hearing in the trial court that the plaintiff had made a similar application to the county for a special exception a year earlier and that the prior application had been denied. ⁵

The appellants' argument relating to res judicata has merit. The doctrine is applicable to rulings or decisions of administrative bodies (Rubin v. Sanford, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 774), and to rulings of such bodies dealing with zoning regulations unless it can be shown that since the earlier ruling thereon there has been a substantial change of circumstances relating to the subject matter with which the ruling was concerned, sufficient to prompt a different or contrary determination, and no such showing was made or attempted in this instance. See City of Miami Beach v. Prevatt, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 473; Marks v. Zoning Board of Review of the City of Providence, 98 R.I. 405, 203 A.2d 761; Gilman v. Zoning Board of the Town of West Warwick, R.I.1968, 240 A.2d 159.

Therefore, in this proceeding which was an attempt to review the ruling of the county commissioners in denial of the requests for special exception and special permit for operation of a night club at the location in question, judgment should have been entered for the defendant county officials because the matter was res judicata (with no showing of changed conditions to render application of the doctrine ineffective in this instance), and because no showing was made upon which to base a contention that the County Commission's ruling, denying Rockmatt's requests for a special exception and a...