Case Name: MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Petitioner, v. NEW LIFE APOSTOLIC CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, INC., Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-02-02
Citations: 750 So. 2d 738
Docket Number: No. 3D99-1626
Parties: MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Petitioner, v. NEW LIFE APOSTOLIC CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, INC., Respondent.
Judges: Before GREEN, SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 750
Pages: 738–741

Head Matter:
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Petitioner, v. NEW LIFE APOSTOLIC CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, INC., Respondent.
No. 3D99-1626.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb. 2, 2000.
Robert A. Ginsburg, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Augusto E. Maxwell, Assistant County Attorney, for petitioner.
Ronald H. Kauffman, Miami, for respondent.
Before GREEN, SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.

Opinion:
SORONDO, J.
Miami-Dade County (the County) seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the circuit court's order quashing the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners' (the Commission) denial of a zoning application.
The New Life Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, Inc. (the Church) applied to the County for six variances of the zoning code to establish a church sanctuary and day care center on a one acre lot, instead of the required two and a half acre lot. Because of the greater acreage required by law, the County initially deferred the Church's application so the Church could explore purchasing or leasing of contiguous property. The Church's efforts to acquire the additional land proved futile.
The County's professional departments recommended approval of the Church's application and the Zoning Appeals Board held a public hearing and approved the application. Local neighbors appealed the decision to the Commission which held another hearing. At the hearing the neighbors objected to the variances on three grounds: 1) the set back variances were extreme and would have an adverse noise impact on the neighboring properties; 2) allowing the variances would continue a poor precedent of allowing churches to use small lots which the Commission had started to correct earlier with similar applications; 3) the zoning map indicated that the variances would add to the extreme proliferation of church uses in the area. The neighbors further established that the last church established in the area had abandoned its efforts to obtain a variance from the 2.5 acre requirement because of the community's opposition, and instead purchased a contiguous lot.
After considerable debate, the Commission approved the appeal and denied the Church's application. The Church petitioned the circuit court for a writ of certio-rari which the circuit court granted, quashing the Commission's ruling.
We conclude that the circuit court's opinion is in conflict with the established precedent of this court. See Miami-Dade County v. Walberg, 739 So.2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Miami-Dade County v. Hernandez, 738 So.2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Metropolitan Dade Coimty, Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Dusseau, 725 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Metropolitan Dade County v. Section 11 Property Corp., 719 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), review denied, 735 So.2d 1287 (Fla.1999); Metropolitan Dade County v. Sportacres Dev. Group, Inc., 698 So.2d 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Metropolitan Dade County v. Blumenthal, 675 So.2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The testimony presented by the neighbors along with the other zoning materials before the Commission constituted competent substantial evidence to justify the Commission's decision to deny the variance request.
Section 33-311(4)(b) of the Miami-Dade County Code requires the following consideration before the granting of the non-use variances at issue in this case:
[T]he Board . may grant a non-use variance upon a showing by the applicant that the non-use variance maintains the basic intent and purpose of the zoning . regulations, which is to protect the general welfare of the public, particularly as it affects the stability and appearance of the community and provided that the non-use variance will be otherwise compatible with the surrounding land uses and would not be detrimental to the community.
The circuit court's opinion observes that the area in question allows for the establishment of a church/day care center. The opinion goes on to say that "any general testimony against the establishment of such facility would not be competent evidence, as it must be deemed immaterial." The opinion ignores the fact that the establishment of such a facility requires a 2.5 acre lot which is not available at this location. Accordingly, the neighbors' testimony in this regard was factual, relevant and material. Indeed, not one but six variances are needed in order to shoehorn a church/day care center onto this property. The magnitude of this request compelled the Commission to consider the compatibility of the request on the surrounding land uses and, whether it was detrimental to the community. The Commission properly allowed the neighbors to be heard on these issues and lawfully exercised its discretion in accepting their perspective.
We conclude that the circuit court's decision was a departure from the essential requirements of law and grant the County's petition, quash the decision of the circuit court and reinstate the decision of the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners.
Certiorari granted.
SHEVIN, J., concurs.
. The neighbors presented evidence that there were already between 12 and 15 churches within a distance of 1.1 miles in this area. They argued that this unusually high concen tration of churches altered the residential character of the area.