DADE SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF NORTH MIAMI, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Dade Savings and Loan sought to rezone two residential lots to a "Parking District" for business parking, but the City of North Miami denied the request. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the city's decision to maintain the alley as a buffer between commercial and residential zones was reasonable and not arbitrary.
The court held that the city's denial of the rezoning request was reasonable and not arbitrary. The city acted appropriately in deciding to maintain the alley as a buffer between commercial and residential property, and Dade Savings failed to demonstrate that the zoning change was related to public welfare or that the city's decision was unreasonable.
[1] A municipality may use a street or alley as a buffer zone to separate commercial and residential zoning districts.
[2] A zoning decision is considered fairly debatable if there is a reasonable basis for the decision, even if the landowner disagrees.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“it is entirely appropriate for a street to serve as a divider between zoning districts”
Establishes the legal principle that physical features like streets or alleys can legitimately separate zoning districts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDade Savings owns commercial property fronted by Northwest 7th Avenue in North Miami and two single-family residential lots west of a paved alley. The…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fairly Debatable Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
Appellant Dade Savings owns two single-family structures on lots in a residential area west of its business premises. The business is located on a strip of land zoned for commercial use which fronts busy Northwest 7th Avenue in North Miami. A paved alley in the rear of Dade Savings and other businesses is used to service the commercial structures. The alley runs several blocks north-south through the City of North Miami and serves to separate commercial lands from single-family homes, including the two single-family lots owned by Dade Savings.
Appellant seeks review of a circuit court order, entered after a de novo hearing, which approved an order of the City Council for the City of North Miami denying a zoning change as to appellant’s two parcels of land from single family to “Parking District,” a specific land use category provided for in the city’s zoning code. Appellant contends that the city’s refusal to rezone was unreasonable and confiscatory. The circuit court determined that the city’s denial of the request for rezoning was fairly debatable.
The city council decided that the paved alley should continue as the buffer between commercial and residential property. We have held on another occasion, recently, that it is entirely appropriate for a street to serve as a divider between zoning districts. Allapattah Community Association, Inc. of Florida v. City of Miami, 379 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 635 (Fla.1980). As was observed by our supreme court in City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480, 3 So. 2d 364, 366 (1941), and quoted in Allapattah Community, 379 So. 2d at 394:
The fact that his land is situated across the street from that on which commercial enterprises may be operated was not alone enough to support plaintiff’s position that he should be given the same latitude in the use of his property. Were this the case it would be but a matter of time before alterations of the whole scheme by successively liberalizing the use of abutting property would result in disintegration and disappearance of the whole plan of zoning.
Appellant demonstrated only that it wished to use the two lots west of the alley for additional business parking space. There is not the required showing that the desired zoning change is related to the public welfare, Dugan v. City of Jacksonville, 343 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), or that the city’s zoning decision was arbitrary or unreasonable, and therefore not fairly debatable. Miles v. Dade County, Board of County Commissioners, 260 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MacHado v. Musgrove, 519 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…eople could differ as to its propriety, i.e., whether the action is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise an abuse of discretion, the administrative decision will not be disturbed by a reviewing court. Dade Savings & Loan Ass’n v. City of North Miami, 458 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Part II of chapter 163, Florida Statutes, called the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, and the local comprehensive plans which it mandates, are not zoning laws. The statute’s requiremen…
Authorities Cited
- The City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480 (Fla. 1941)
- Adler v. Nelly Saffran (Fla. 1914)
- Allapattah Cmty. Ass'n v. City OF Miami, 379 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Elbert Miles v. Dade Cnty., 260 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Dugan v. City OF Jacksonville, 343 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)