Synder (P) owned land and wanted to rezone that land from general use to a zoning classification that allows the construction of 15 units per acre. The Brevard County Board (D) reviewed the application and found that P's use was consistent with the comprehensive plan. When the issue came to a vote, a number of citizens opposed the rezoning and D eventually denied the request. P appealed, and issues relating to the force and effect of judicial review were discussed by the review court. The court determined that a zoning action that affects large groups of people were generally legislative in nature and the courts were tasked with upholding those enactments if they were fairly debatable. If the issue was rezoning that affected a specific group of parties, then the acts were quasi-judicial and subject to close judicial scrutiny. The lower court reasoned that once the landowner met his burden that his application complies with the reasonable procedural requirements and that the use sought is consistent with the applicable comprehensive zoning plan, the governmental agency must then prove by clear and convincing evidence that a specifically stated public necessity requires a specified more restrictive use. If the agency makes that showing, then the burden shifts to the landowner to prove that the more restrictive use of his property is a taking for public use which entitles him to compensation. The lower court found that P met its initial burden and D failed as their reasons for not allowing the rezoning were arbitrary and unreasonable. This court granted certiorari.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.