A Second Chance, Inc. v. Dade County

Florida Circuit Courts

A Second Chance, Inc. v. Dade County

18 Fla. Supp. 2d 194

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedJuly 31, 1986

DocketCase No. 84-261 AP

StatusPublished

This text of 18 Fla. Supp. 2d 194 (A Second Chance, Inc. v. Dade County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A Second Chance, Inc. v. Dade County, 18 Fla. Supp. 2d 194 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

[195]*195OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant operates a business in the unincorporated area of Dade County, Florida. In October of 1983, Dade County ordered the business closed because of an ordinance adopted by the Court on February 19, 1983. The Appellant filed a zoning application requesting a variance. On June 13, 1984, the ZAB granted Appellant’s application and Appellant was granted a use variance for a period of five (5) years, said term to expire on June 18, 1989.

The City National Bank, As Trustee, and Briar Bay Shopping Center Ltd., the Intervenors, filed an Appeal on this matter to the Metropolitan Dade County Commission. The Metropolitan Dade County Commission reversed the ZAB decision without hearing testimony from any party or from the Intervenors but rather relied upon the statements made by the attorneys for the Intervenors. This is contrary to the requirement that to review a decision by the ZAB the Dade County Commission is empowered to hear testimony and evidence and attorney’s comments and arguments are not evidence, Houck v. State, 421 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

Therefore, we reverse and remand and send this matter to the Dade County Commission to have a full hearing on this issue and determine the merits of the original Appeal.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[195]*195OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant operates a business in the unincorporated area of Dade County, Florida. In October of 1983, Dade County ordered the business closed because of an ordinance adopted by the Court on February 19, 1983. The Appellant filed a zoning application requesting a variance. On June 13, 1984, the ZAB granted Appellant’s application and Appellant was granted a use variance for a period of five (5) years, said term to expire on June 18, 1989.

The City National Bank, As Trustee, and Briar Bay Shopping Center Ltd., the Intervenors, filed an Appeal on this matter to the Metropolitan Dade County Commission. The Metropolitan Dade County Commission reversed the ZAB decision without hearing testimony from any party or from the Intervenors but rather relied upon the statements made by the attorneys for the Intervenors. This is contrary to the requirement that to review a decision by the ZAB the Dade County Commission is empowered to hear testimony and evidence and attorney’s comments and arguments are not evidence, Houck v. State, 421 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

Therefore, we reverse and remand and send this matter to the Dade County Commission to have a full hearing on this issue and determine the merits of the original Appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Fla. Supp. 2d 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-second-chance-inc-v-dade-county-flacirct-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack