Case Name: SEMINOLE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Petitioner, v. EDEN PARK VILLAGE, INC., etc., Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-09-26
Citations: 699 So. 2d 334
Docket Number: No. 96-3487
Parties: SEMINOLE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Petitioner, v. EDEN PARK VILLAGE, INC., etc., Respondent.
Judges: GOSHORN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 699
Pages: 334–337

Head Matter:
SEMINOLE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Petitioner, v. EDEN PARK VILLAGE, INC., etc., Respondent.
No. 96-3487.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Sept. 26, 1997.
Robert A. McMillan, County Attorney, and Lonnie N. Groot, Deputy County Attorney, and Herbert S. Zischkau, III, Assistant County Attorney, Sanford, for petitioner.
William E. Clague, 'Assistant County Attorney, Orlando, amicus curiae, for Orange County.
Mary A. Marshall, Alachua County Attorney, and David W. Wagner, Assistant County Attorney, Gainesville, amicus curiae, for Ala-chua County.
Clayton D. Simmons and Catherine D. Reisehmann, of Stenstrom, McIntosh, Colbert, Whigham & Simmons, P.A., Sanford, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Seminole County Board of County Commissioners ("SCBCC") petitions this court for certiorari review of a ruling of the circuit court sitting as a three-judge panel in its appellate capacity. We find no merit in SCBCC's procedural due process argument; however, based on our conclusion that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law in ordering SCBCC to take a specific action, we grant the petition in part.
The circuit court quashed a quasi-judicial order of SCBCC which denied Eden Park Village's application for a special exception to expand its existing Adult Congregate Living Facility from one residential lot in a subdivision to two lots. The opinion reads in pertinent part: "Certiorari granted, order quashed, case remanded with directions to Respondent to grant the special exception in accordance with this opinion." Our review of the record shows that the circuit court's decision must be sustained because the circuit court afforded procedural due process and applied the correct law. See City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So.2d 624 (Fla.1982). In the absence of an error, of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice, and we find none here, this court may not be used for a second appeal. See Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 527 (Fla.1995). The circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity, proceeded according to the essential requirements of law. Accordingly, we deny SCBCC's petition for writ of certiorari as to its procedural due process claim.
We find, however, that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law when it ordered SCBCC to grant the exception. The circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity could quash the order under review, but it could not direct SCBCC to take a specific action. See ABG Real Estate Dev. Co. of Florida, Inc. v. St. Johns County, 608 So.2d 59 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (citing City of Miramar v. Amoco Oil Co., 524 So.2d 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Gulf Oil Realty Co. v. Windhover Ass'n, Inc., 403 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)), dismissed, 613 So.2d 8 (Fla.1993). Therefore, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari in part and quash that portion of the circuit court's opinion which ordered SCBCC to grant the special exception.
CERTIORARI GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; REMANDED. .
GOSHORN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
W. SHARP, J., dissents, with opinion.
. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(2)(B).