Thompson v. Dade County

Florida Circuit Courts

Thompson v. Dade County

4 Fla. Supp. 2d 96

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedAugust 20, 1981

DocketCase No. 81-189 AP

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Fla. Supp. 2d 96 (Thompson 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

Thompson v. Dade County, 4 Fla. Supp. 2d 96 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

AFFIRMED.

Judge Moore dissenting.

[97]*97I respectfully dissent. Although the law requires Dade County to be bound by its own zoning procedures and methods in granting zoning permission; Florida Tallow Corp. v. Bryan, 237 So.2d 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); City of Miami Beach v. Consolo, 279 So.2d 76 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) cert. den., 292 So.2d 24 (1974); Bubb v. Barber, 295 So.2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), in this case, the Dade County Zoning Authority has chosen not to follow its own procedure and methods. Numerous violations are readily apparent, to-wit;

A use variance application for Convent, Rectory, or Social Hall was not filed; an application for reduction of required acreage size for proposed buildings was omitted; an application to reduce required setback of 250 feet from the property line was also not filed.

Accordingly, it is my opinion the zoning permission granted, is illegal, and this Court should reverse Dade County Commission Resolution No. Z-120-81, direct that Dade County Zoning Appeals Board Resolution No. 4-ZAB-109-81 be reversed, and that no relief be granted to Archbishop Edward A. McCarthy.

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

PER CURIAM

AFFIRMED.

Judge Moore dissenting.

[97]*97I respectfully dissent. Although the law requires Dade County to be bound by its own zoning procedures and methods in granting zoning permission; Florida Tallow Corp. v. Bryan, 237 So.2d 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); City of Miami Beach v. Consolo, 279 So.2d 76 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) cert. den., 292 So.2d 24 (1974); Bubb v. Barber, 295 So.2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), in this case, the Dade County Zoning Authority has chosen not to follow its own procedure and methods. Numerous violations are readily apparent, to-wit;

A use variance application for Convent, Rectory, or Social Hall was not filed; an application for reduction of required acreage size for proposed buildings was omitted; an application to reduce required setback of 250 feet from the property line was also not filed.

Accordingly, it is my opinion the zoning permission granted, is illegal, and this Court should reverse Dade County Commission Resolution No. Z-120-81, direct that Dade County Zoning Appeals Board Resolution No. 4-ZAB-109-81 be reversed, and that no relief be granted to Archbishop Edward A. McCarthy.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Fla. Supp. 2d 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-dade-county-flacirct-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack