Metropolitan Dade County v. Jennings Const. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 February 1967
• Docket Number: No. 65--973,65--973
• Parties: METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, Fred A. Abel and Audrey J. Abel, his wife, Enos Olin and Maxine S. Olin, his wife, Arthur Coverson and Edith Coverson, his wife et al., Appellants, v. JENNINGS CONSTRUCTION CO., a Florida corporation, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 33

196 So.2d 33

METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, Fred A. Abel and Audrey J. Abel, his wife, Enos Olin and Maxine S. Olin, his wife, Arthur Coverson and Edith Coverson, his wife et al., Appellants, v. JENNINGS CONSTRUCTION CO., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 65--973.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 21, 1967.

Rehearing Denied March 21, 1967.

Thomas C. Britton, County Atty., and St. Julien P. Rosemond, Asst. County Atty., J. O. Phillips, Miami, for appellants.

William W. Charles, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C.J., PEARSON, J., and KANNER, A.O., Associate Judge.

PEARSON, Judge.

The County appeals a judgment of the circuit court after the granting of certiorari in a zoning dispute. ¹ The judgment may be divided into two aspects for consideration of this appeal. First, it determined that the County Commission had departed from the essential requirements of law in its order which rezoned petitioner's property. Second, the court ordered rezoning to a specific zoning classification and cubic foot content for the residences to be constructed. We affirm the first order requiring the County Commission to rezone, but we remand the second aspect of the order for reconsideration.

The petitioner, appellee here, owns a ten acre plot which it intends to develop by subdivision and construction of homes for sale. At the time of purchase it was zoned AU, which is agricultural use. Appellee's application to the County for rezoning culminated in a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners which rezoned the property as follows:

'NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners, Dade County, Florida, that the aforedescribed property be and the same is hereby zoned in the following manner:

1. That two tier of lots conforming with the EU-M requirements be provided on the North portion of the property (North 300 plus or minus) and that said property be zoned EU-M, 15,000 c.f.

2. That one tier of lots conforming with the EU-M requirements be provided on the West portion of the property (West 150 plus or minus) and the same be zoned EU-M, 15,000 c.f.

3. That the balance of the subject property be zoned RU--1, 12,500 c.f.'

The County Commission's rezoning of the tract in 'tiers' was a modification of a proposal by the applicant. At the beginning of the hearing on the application the applicant stated:

'Our solution is to plat this property in three blocks. The property on the north, abutting up to the people, are one hundred and twenty-nine foot frontage and one hundred and twenty-five foot frontage, and one hundred and twenty-five feet deep, which compares to your EU--M property. That would be five lots on the entire block across the entire ten acres, and we feel that a fifteen thousand cubic foot minimum would be very good, would be very substantial, and would be in comparison to the homes to the north.

'That is a generous offer, a generous solution, and a sacrifice to the owner of the land.

'Dropping down, you would see the eighty-five hundred foot has been scratched over and the minimum of twelve thousand cubic feet (indicating). Those lots are seventy-five feet wide or more, running a hundred feet deep or more, and then, as we drop down to 128th Avenue, which is travelled, well-travelled avenue, which has industrial on the south of it, where we did consider seventy-five hundred cubic foot minimum, we have gone up to ten thousand cubic foot minimum.'

At the conclusion of the hearing the County Commission denied the petitioner's rezoning application, but substituted a modified rezoning plan.

Upon the granting of the writ of certiorari in the circuit court, the judge held that the zoning as set by the County Commission was unreasonable, arbitrary and confiscatory. He further held as follows:

'That the Court is of the further opinion that the County Commission should rezone the property with the north tier of lots no less than 80 feet in width and with a minimum cubic feet of building content of 10,000 cubic feet (matching the north side zoning) and this minimum should be reduced to reasonable amounts of the property south of the north tier, and that the property should be used for one-family classification with...