Alachua County v. Hartman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Alachua County v. Hartman

516 So. 2d 302, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2699, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11182, 1987 WL 1910

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 1, 1987

DocketNo. BS-371

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 516 So. 2d 302 (Alachua County v. Hartman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alachua County v. Hartman, 516 So. 2d 302, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2699, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11182, 1987 WL 1910 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellant, Alachua County, appeals a second amended final judgment finding the present zoning category and land use designation on appellees’ property to be invalid and ordering the County to place a zoning category and land use designation on the property that is consistent with the surrounding zoning and land uses and not more restrictive or less intensive than commercial except for an approximately 4-acre wetlands area. In the alternative, the trial court ruled that the County may designate the land as an activity center as described in the County’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use 2000.

Having thoroughly examined the extensive record, which includes videotapes and numerous maps, and having read and heard the arguments of the parties, we find that competent, substantial evidence supports the trial judge’s resolution of the conflicts in the evidence and his conclusions.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellant, Alachua County, appeals a second amended final judgment finding the present zoning category and land use designation on appellees’ property to be invalid and ordering the County to place a zoning category and land use designation on the property that is consistent with the surrounding zoning and land uses and not more restrictive or less intensive than commercial except for an approximately 4-acre wetlands area. In the alternative, the trial court ruled that the County may designate the land as an activity center as described in the County’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use 2000.

Having thoroughly examined the extensive record, which includes videotapes and numerous maps, and having read and heard the arguments of the parties, we find that competent, substantial evidence supports the trial judge’s resolution of the conflicts in the evidence and his conclusions.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 So. 2d 302, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2699, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11182, 1987 WL 1910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alachua-county-v-hartman-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack