Palm Beach County v. Tinnerman, 4-86-2381
| Decision Date | 25 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-86-2381,4-86-2381 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2689,517 So.2d 699 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2689 PALM BEACH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Petitioner, v. William R. TINNERMAN, William G. Robinson and Rosacker Properties, Inc., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Thomas J. Baird, Asst. Co. Atty., West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
G. Steven Brannock, of F. Martin Perry & Associates, P.A., West Palm Beach, for respondents.
Palm Beach County seeks review by way of certiorari of an order reversing denial of respondents' application for rezoning and for special exception by the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the zoning authority. The order not only reversed the denial of the application, but it also directed the zoning authority to grant the application for rezoning and special exception.
Our consideration is limited to the questions of whether petitioner has been afforded procedural due process and whether the lower tribunal departed from the essential requirements of the law. City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So.2d 624 (Fla.1982).
Procedural due process is not an issue in this case. Addressing the second aspect of our inquiry, we hold that there has been a departure from the essential requirements of the law in two respects.
As we said in Marell v. Hardy, 450 So.2d 1207, 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (citations omitted):
Zoning resolutions are presumed valid and should not be disturbed by the courts unless they are arbitrarily and unreasonably applied to a particular piece of property. A clear showing of an abuse of discretion by the Commission is required. The test to be used in determining whether a zoning resolution is arbitrary and unreasonable as applied to a particular piece of property is whether the particular resolution is 'fairly debatable' ... the trial court under the 'fairly debatable' rule is limited to a determination of whether a legitimate controversy existed before the zoning body. If the court so determines, then the Commission's action must be upheld.
See also Rural New Town, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 315 So.2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
It is abundantly clear that the appropriateness of the proposed zoning change and special exception was a fairly debatable proposition surrounded by reasonable and legitimate controversy. Under such circumstances the presumption of validity which attaches to a zoning ordinance or decision by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snyder v. Board of County Com'rs of Brevard County
...St. Johns County v. Owings, 554 So.2d 535, 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), rev. denied, 564 So.2d 488 (Fla.1990); Palm Beach County v. Tinnerman, 517 So.2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 528 So.2d 1183 (Fla.1988).31 Indeed, Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., the 1926 United States Supr......
-
St. Johns County v. Owings
...county commission's decision was reasonable, the circuit court utilized the correct standard of law. See, e.g., Palm Beach County v. Tinnerman, 517 So.2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 528 So.2d 1183 (Fla.1988) (fairly debatable standard applies in reviewing denial of rezoning). Agai......
-
Lee County v. Sunbelt Equities, II, Ltd. Partnership, 92-03948
...in St. Johns County v. Owings, 554 So.2d 535 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), rev. denied, 564 So.2d 488 (Fla.1990), and Palm Beach County v. Tinnerman, 517 So.2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 528 So.2d 1183 (Fla.1988), the courts applied the "fairly debatable" standard appropriate for legislat......
-
Board of County Com'rs of Brevard County v. Snyder
...of Jacksonville Beach v. Grubbs, 461 So.2d 160 (Fla. 1st DCA1984), review denied, 469 So.2d 749 (Fla.1985); and Palm Beach County v. Tinnerman, 517 So.2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA1987), review denied, 528 So.2d 1183 (Fla.1988). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Co......