Opinion ID: 1138281
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Educational Development Center

Text: The case of Education Development Center v. City of West Palm Beach, 541 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1989), unlike Combs, began in an administrative agency  a zoning board of appeals. Further, in contrast to Combs, we held that the district court had applied too broad a standard of review. In Education Development Center [hereinafter EDC ], the petitioner sought permission from the Zoning Board of Appeal (Board) to convert its residential property to a private preschool and kindergarten. The Board denied EDC's application and EDC appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court reversed, and concluded there was substantially competent evidence to support EDC's application as required by the zoning code. Subsequently, the district court granted the Board's petition for certiorari, and found that the circuit court had applied an incorrect standard of review. [11] EDC, 541 So.2d at 107. On remand and reconsideration, the circuit court again reversed the zoning board decision, this time finding that there was no substantial competent evidence to support the City's denial of the petition. Id. at 108. Upon a second review in the district court, the circuit court's decision was again quashed, based upon the district court's disagreement with the trial court as to the existence of substantial competent evidence to support the Board's decision. [12] City of W. Palm Beach v. Education Dev. Ctr., 526 So.2d 775, 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). In our review of EDC, we relied on City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So.2d 624, 626 (Fla. 1982), to define the district court's standard of review, and stated: [T]he principles expressed by the Court in Vaillant clearly define the standards of review applicable here. There was no contention of a denial of due process and the district court of appeal did not find that the trial judge applied an incorrect principle of law. The district court of appeal simply disagreed with the circuit court's evaluation of the evidence. Accordingly, we reaffirm Vaillant and quash the decision of the district court. 541 So.2d at 108-09.