City of Melbourne v. Puma

District Court of Appeal of Florida

City of Melbourne v. Puma

635 So. 2d 159, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3907, 1994 WL 153551

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 29, 1994

DocketNo. 92-1038

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 635 So. 2d 159 (City of Melbourne v. Puma) 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

City of Melbourne v. Puma, 635 So. 2d 159, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3907, 1994 WL 153551 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We consider the present case after the Florida Supreme Court remanded our decision in City of Melbourne v. Puma, 616 So.2d 190 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), for further consideration consistent with Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So.2d 469 (Fla.1993). City of Melbourne v. Puma, 630 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1994).

After a non-jury trial, the trial court, based upon our decision in Snyder,1 ordered the City of Melbourne either to grant the request of Joseph Albert Puma to have his property rezoned and the City’s Comprehensive Plan amended accordingly,² or to hold an evidentiary hearing and to make findings of fact why the request should not be granted.

Because the supreme court quashed our decision in Snyder,³ we vacate the trial court’s order and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with Snyder. On remand, the trial court also should consider whether justice would best be served by permitting Puma to file a new rezoning application in the event that conditions have changed during the lapse of time since he filed his original application for rezoning. See Snyder, 627 So.2d at 476.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH, PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We consider the present case after the Florida Supreme Court remanded our decision in City of Melbourne v. Puma, 616 So.2d 190 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), for further consideration consistent with Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So.2d 469 (Fla.1993). City of Melbourne v. Puma, 630 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1994).

After a non-jury trial, the trial court, based upon our decision in Snyder,1 ordered the City of Melbourne either to grant the request of Joseph Albert Puma to have his property rezoned and the City’s Comprehensive Plan amended accordingly,² or to hold an evidentiary hearing and to make findings of fact why the request should not be granted.

Because the supreme court quashed our decision in Snyder,³ we vacate the trial court’s order and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with Snyder. On remand, the trial court also should consider whether justice would best be served by permitting Puma to file a new rezoning application in the event that conditions have changed during the lapse of time since he filed his original application for rezoning. See Snyder, 627 So.2d at 476.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH, PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

635 So. 2d 159, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3907, 1994 WL 153551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-melbourne-v-puma-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack