final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Tribunal No. 19-22
of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County,
Appellate Division, Ivonne Cuesta, Carlos Guzman, and Oscar
Carlton Fields, P.A., and Richard J. Ovelmen, Enrique D.
Arana, Todd M. Fuller and Scott E. Byers, for petitioner.
Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP and Phillip M. Hudson, III and
Hilda Piloto, for respondent.
SALTER, FERNANDEZ and LINDSEY, JJ.
City of Miami Beach ("City") petitions for a writ
of (second-tier) certiorari quashing an unelaborated order of
dismissal by the appellate division of the circuit court of
Miami-Dade County. That order dismissed the City's
petition for a writ of (first-tier) certiorari taken from the
City's Board of Adjustment's ("BOA's")
decision reversing the City Planning Director's
determination regarding the allegedly unlicensed operation of
the respondent's ("Beach Blitz's") package
liquor store. We grant the petition and quash the order,
concluding that the appellate division panel's summary
dismissal was a departure from the essential requirements of
underlying dispute is whether Beach Blitz's liquor store
is a "legally established nonconforming use" under
the City's Code of Ordinances ("City Code"). In
May 2018, Beach Blitz formally requested from the Planning
Director a determination that the store was a legal
nonconforming use. Shortly thereafter, the Planning Director
determined the property does not fulfill the necessary
criteria for a legal nonconforming use under the City Code.
Beach Blitz appealed that determination to the BOA.
an evidentiary hearing, the BOA reversed the Planning
Director's determination. In its final administrative
order, the BOA explained:
The [BOA] . . . finds, based on the information and
documentation presented to the [BOA], and based on the
argument of counsel and testimony of the parties, that with
regard to the request to reverse the decision of the Planning
Director regarding the legal non-conforming status of the
package liquor store, [Beach Blitz's] appeal is hereby
GRANTED, and the decision of the Planning Director is hereby
result of the BOA's reversal, the City sought certiorari
review in the circuit court appellate division, complaining
the BOA "departed from the essential requirements of the
law in reversing the Planning Director's determination
that Beach Blitz was not a lawful nonconforming use." In
response, Beach Blitz filed a motion to dismiss, seeking
"a summar[y] deni[al] as [the City] fail[ed] to
establish a departure from the essential requirements of
law." Following these submissions, the circuit court