Grovpac Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Grovpac Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County

232 So. 2d 416, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6825

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 10, 1970

DocketNo. 69-485

StatusPublished

This text of 232 So. 2d 416 (Grovpac Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County) 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

Grovpac Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 232 So. 2d 416, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6825 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant Grovpac has taken this appeal from a final order of the Circuit Court of Dade County which denied its petition for certiorari. Originally, the Zoning Appeals Board had approved the appellant’s application for an unusual use of its property, to-wit: a mobile home trailer park. The decision of the Zoning Appeals Board granted certain variances and special exceptions to the existing ordinance. This ruling was appealed to the Metropolitan Dade County Board of County Commissioners, and that body reversed the original decision of the Zoning Appeals Board. The appellant thereupon filed its petition for certiorari in the Circuit Court of Dade County, which, having been denied, has led to this appeal.

We have carefully considered the record, all points on appeal, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that the Circuit Court was correct in denying the petition for certiorari. The Metropolitan Dade County Board of County Commissioners denied, without prejudice, the appellant’s application for unusual use of its property (as a mobile home trailer park) and also denied the requested variances and [417]*417special exceptions. It is our holding that said denial was amply supported in law and fact. In City of Miami Beach v. Silver, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 646, the Supreme Court stated:

“One who assails [a comprehensive zoning ordinance] must carry the burden of both alleging and proving that the Municipal enactment is invalid, [emphasis by the court] (Citations omitted.) The burden of one who attacks such an ordinance has been called an extraordinary one. (Citations omitted.)” Id., at 647.

Our decision should not be construed as a holding that this court either approves or disapproves of the future use of this property as a mobile home trailer park.

No error having been made to appear, the order appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant Grovpac has taken this appeal from a final order of the Circuit Court of Dade County which denied its petition for certiorari. Originally, the Zoning Appeals Board had approved the appellant’s application for an unusual use of its property, to-wit: a mobile home trailer park. The decision of the Zoning Appeals Board granted certain variances and special exceptions to the existing ordinance. This ruling was appealed to the Metropolitan Dade County Board of County Commissioners, and that body reversed the original decision of the Zoning Appeals Board. The appellant thereupon filed its petition for certiorari in the Circuit Court of Dade County, which, having been denied, has led to this appeal.

We have carefully considered the record, all points on appeal, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that the Circuit Court was correct in denying the petition for certiorari. The Metropolitan Dade County Board of County Commissioners denied, without prejudice, the appellant’s application for unusual use of its property (as a mobile home trailer park) and also denied the requested variances and [417]*417special exceptions. It is our holding that said denial was amply supported in law and fact. In City of Miami Beach v. Silver, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 646, the Supreme Court stated:

“One who assails [a comprehensive zoning ordinance] must carry the burden of both alleging and proving that the Municipal enactment is invalid, [emphasis by the court] (Citations omitted.) The burden of one who attacks such an ordinance has been called an extraordinary one. (Citations omitted.)” Id., at 647.

Our decision should not be construed as a holding that this court either approves or disapproves of the future use of this property as a mobile home trailer park.

No error having been made to appear, the order appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 So. 2d 416, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grovpac-corp-v-metropolitan-dade-county-fladistctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack