Metropolitan Dade County v. Pierce, 69--963

• Decision Date: 09 June 1970
• Docket Number: No. 69--963,69--963
• Citation: 236 So.2d 202
• Parties: METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellant. v. Walter M. PIERCE, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 202

236 So.2d 202

METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellant. v. Walter M. PIERCE, Appellee.

No. 69--963.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 9, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 29, 1970.

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

Aronovitz, Aronovitz & Haverfield, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C.J., and BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In 1968, the appellee, Pierce, filed his application in order to change the AU zoning of his property to RU--4M (multiple family), so that the property could be for multiple family apartments. The initial hearing was held before the Zoning Appeal Board, and, on January 15, 1969, that agency recommended approval of the application, embodying such approval in Resolution No. 4--2AB--61--69.

Dade County, appellant herein, sought review of the above approval, and hearing was held before the Dade County Board of County Commissioners. The Commissioner denied the specific zoning sought, but did rezone the subject property to EU--1 in Resolution No. Z-97=69.

Certiorari proceedings were then initiated in the circuit court, as a result of which the court ordered that the subject property should be rezoned to a zoning classificiation not less liberal than RU--4M.

The appellant has appealed the above order of the circuit court, contending that Pierce has not demonstrated that his property cannot be used for single family use as it was zoned by the county commission, nor has he carried the burden of proving that the issue of the reasonable use of his property was not fairly debatable. Having reviewed the record and briefs of counsel, we are convinced that the court ruled correctly. The one hundred, twenty acre parcel of realty which composes the physical block on which the appellee's property is located contains numerous and substantial commercial improvements in the Baptist Hospital complex, The Crittenton Home for Unwed Mothers, The South Miami Riding Club, The Snapper Creek Nursing Home, and all attendant automobile traffic and noise. It was demonstrated that 80% Of this one hundred, twenty acre tract has already been commercially developed.

We feel that the trial judge accurately determined the germane facts and applied the law when he held as follows:

'The county recommended by its General Land Use Master Plan of Dade County that, with the exception of the hospital, the property in the block be comprehensively zoned for single-family development. However, the county by its own conduct has caused extensive encroachment into this comprehensive plan. Not one single-family home has been built in the block since the development of the hospital property.

'Further, across Galloway Road to the east has recently been constructed apartment house complexes and a few blocks further east is located Dadeland Shopping Center, a regional shopping center. To the west exist apartment houses, town houses, single-family houses and a shopping (center). To the north, across North Kendall Drive exist the K-Land youth recreational center and stables, a fish farm, a gas station and a grocery store. To the south is property zoned for single family...