HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Board of Adjustment_Tab 01_06/10/2013 VILLAGE OF TE UE S TA
BQARD OF ADJUSTMENT
2013 -2Q 1 �
TAB 1
VILLAGE OF TEQUEST�
CODE OF ORDINANCES
SECTIONS PERTAINI�TG TO THE
BOARD OF ADJU�Tl�IE�TT
Municode http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?Ir&clientII�13868&HTM1Zeq...
Tequesta, Florida, Code of Ordinances » PART II - CODE OF ORDINANCES » Chapter 78 - ZONING »
ARTICLE III. - APPEALS AND VARIANCES »
ARTICLE 111. - APPEALS AND VARIANCES �
Sec. 78-61. - Generaliv.
Sec. 78-62_- Board of adjustment established: membership; rules of procedure.
Sec. 78-63. - Appeal procedure.
Sec 78-64. - Stav of �roceedings �endina decision on appeai.
Sec 78-65 - Powers and duties of board of adjustment and villaqe council; public notice.
Sec 78-66 - Decisions� required vote� resubmission after denial.
Sec. 78-67. - Appeal to circuit court.
Sec. 78-68. - Time limitation on variances.
Sec. 78-69. - Filing fee.
Secs. 78-70-78-90. - Reserved.
Sec. 78-61. - Generally.
Appeals and variances described in this article shall be considered by either the board of
adjustment or the village council. The board of adjustment shalf consider appeals and variances
relating to single-family properties and structures located withir� the R-1A and R-1 single-family
dwelling districts of the village. The village council shalf consider appeafs and variances relating to all
other �roperties not within the jurisdiction of the board of adjustment, including properties within the
R-1A and R-1 single-family dwelling districts wrich are not single-family, and structures and properties
in all other zoning districts in the villag�, and ap;�eals and variances relating to subdivisions in any
zoning district.
(Grd. No. 7-08, § 2, 4-1G-2008)
�gc. 78-62. -�oard of adjustment establis�ecl; rr��rnt��rship; r�ules of precedure.
(�) A board Qf adjusiment is hsrsby estabfished, whi�h shall perform it$ duties as provided k�y law �n
such a way that the objectives af this chapter shail �e obs�rved, public heaith, safety, and
welfare secured, and substantia� justice done.
l�) The baard of adjustment shall consist of five reg;.�lar r�embers appointed by thP village council,
who shall serve witf�out comp�nsatit�n and for a tyrm of three years. In additian to the regular
board members, two additiona� rnemb:rs, to b� designated as alterrate #1 and aiternate #2,
shall be appointed to se�e in that �rder at meeting� of the board when necessary on the board
as a q�orum. In the case of only three members present, al! pressnt shall have to vote in favor
of a va�iance to make it effectiv�. Alternate members shall serve for two years, but of the first
appointeti alternate members, one shall serve fc�r �ne year, and �ne shall serve for two years.
Thereafter, alternate members shall be appointed #or two-year terms.
��) Uacancies in the board membership by res�gnation, illness or ather causes shall be filled by the
village council for the unexpired term of the mem�r involved. Members of the board of
adjustment may be removed from office by the village council upon written charges and after
public hearing. The board shall select its own chair and vice-chair annually at the first meeting
1 of 5 5/212�13 2:0� PM
Municode http://library.municode.com/printaspx?h=&clientIIk13868�H'1'MKeq...
of the calendar year. The community development director or a designated representative shall
serve as clerk and advisor to the board.
(d) All members of the board of adjustment shall be qualified electors of the village.
(e) The board of adjustment shall adopt rules of procedure for the conduct of its business,
consistent with the provisions of this chapter. Meetings of the board shall be held at the call of
the chair, and at such time as the board may determine. All meetings of the board and its files
or records shall be open to the public.
�� The board of adjustment shall also keep minutes of its proceedings, showing the vote of each
member upon each question, or, if absent, indicating such fact, and shall keep records of its
examinations and other official actions, all of which shall be immediately filed in the office of the
village clerk and shall be a public record.
(Ord. Na. 7-08, § 2, 4-10-2008)
Cross reference— Administration, ch. 2.
Sec. 78-63. - Appeal procedure.
(a) Appeals to the board of adjustment or the village council, as appropriate, may be taken by an
applicant aggrieved by adrninistrative acfiion of the village manager, th� community davelopment
director or the building official, or their designees, relating to the powers and duties of the board
of adjustment or the viilage council under this chapter, as appropriate. For purposes of this
section, the preparation or submittal of a staff report or its equivalent shall not be con�idered
administrative action su�ject t� appallate review. Such appeal shall be taken within 15 days of
receipt the written decision being appealed, by filing with the village clerk a notice of appeal
specifying the grounds thereof. The person(s) from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith
transmit to the village clerk ail of the papers constituting the record upon which th� action was
taken.
�b) The board or the viliage cour.cil, as appropriate, shall fix a reasonable time for the hear9n� of
the appeal, give public natice thereof, by sending notice through regular mail to property owners
of record within a 300-faot radius of the outermost perimeter of the subject property and by
publicati�n in a n�wspap�r of general c9rculation within the communi�y, a minimuri c�f ten days in
advance �f the public he�ring Gnd decide the sarrie within a reasonable time. Upan the hEaring,
any party may appear in persc�n, by agent or by atiorney.
�G) The �wner of the proper[y fc�r whicr kh� appeal is sough# or the age�t o.r attorney de�igra#ed by
the owner c,� tne �ubmiited notice of appeai shall be notified by ma�l o� the uate and Yime of the
hea� ing.
(Urd. No. 7-�8, § 2, 4-1t3-2Q�8,• Ord. No 21-91, � 2, 9?-�-;011)
Sec. 78-64. - Sta� of pro�e�dings pending decision an appeal.
An �ppeal staya ail proceedings in furtherance of the action appeaEed fr��m, unless the
person(s) from whom the appeal is iaken certifiies to the board �fi �djustment or the village courcil, as
appropriate, after #he notice of appeal shall have been fiiled with riim, that, by reason of facts stated in
the certificate, a stay wauid, in hi� opi�ian, eause imminent peril to iife and property. In such case,
proceedings shal( not be stayed otherirvise than by a restraining order, which may be granted Ey a
court of r�c�rd on applicati.,n, on no�ice ta the officer from whom the appeal is taken and on dua
cause shown.
(Ord. No. 7-08, § 2, 4-10-2008; Ord. No. 21-19, § 2, 12-8-2011)
Sec. 78-65. - Powers and duties of board of adjustment and village council; public
2 of 5 Si 2i 2013 2:00 PM
Municode http://library.municode.com/printaspx?Yr
notice.
(a) The board of adjustment and the village councii shall have the following powers in regard to
appeals and variances within their jurisdiction as defined under section 78-61
�� ) Hear and decide appeals where it is aileged there is error in any order, requirement,
decision or determination made by an administrat�ve official in the enforcement of #his
ch�pter or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto.
� Authorize upon application in specific cases such variance from the terms of this chapter
as will not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literal
enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in unnecessary hardship. The
power to grant any such variance shall be limited by and contingent upon a finding by the
board or council that:
a� Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land,
structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands,
structures or buildings in the same zoning district.
b� The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actEons of the
applicant.
�• Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this chapter to other IandS, buildings or structures in the
same zoning district.
d• Literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant
of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under
the terms of this chapter and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the
applicant.
e• The variance granted is the minimum variance that will mak� possible the
reasonable use of the land, building er structure.
r• The grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of
this chap#er and such variance will no# be injurious t� the area involved or
otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
(b) in granti�g any variance, the board of adjustrnent or village council may przscribe appropriate
conditions and sa#eguards in confarmity with this chapter and any ott�er or�inance enacted by
the viilage cr un�il. Volatian of such conditions and safeauards, v�hen rnade a part of the terms
und�r which the variance is granted, shall be deemed a viola#ic�n of this chapter.
(c} !n revievving m�attsrs br9ught before it pursuant to the provisions of this article, neitner the
boar� of a�iusim�nt ncr t:�e village council shal! ex�rcise au:horitv or �uris�i�tic�r� �v�r matters
whfch are s��cifically reserved to other officers, boards or agencies of the village. Where site
pian revi�w is necessitated pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, na decision of the board
of adjustment cr the village council with resp�ct to a varianc�, or other rr�tter, pertaining to the
pr�aparty in ques�ic�ns shali abviate the nece�sity for s��h site �lan revi�w. Where a requested
build�ng permit has been withheld by the b�ailding officia! for want cf compliance vvith applicable
laws and ardinar.ces �eyor.d the jurisdiction of the boar� c�f adjustment Qr th�: viElage council, no
buil�ing permit shall be issued regardiess of any decision of th� board or vi!lage council until the
requirsr.�ents of such !aws and ordinances have �een met.
(d) Under no circu�stances shall the board of a�justrr�nt or the 5��llage coun�ii grant a variance to
permit a use not generally or by special exception permitted in the zoning district involved or
any use express;y or by implication prohibited by the terms of this chapter in the zoning district.
No nonconformir�g use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district
and no permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other zoning districts shall be
considered grounds for the authorization af a variance.
3 af 5 5/2/2013 2:00 PM
Municode http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?lr
(e) Notice of public hearing of the board of adjustment shall be advertised a minimum of ten days in
advance of the public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the area.
(Ord. No. 7-08, § 2, 4-10-2008)
Sec. 78-66. - Decisions; required vote; resubmission after denial.
In exercising the powers mentioned in section 78-65, the board of adjustment or the village
council may, in conformity with the provisions of this article, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may
modify the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and may make such order,
requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the powers
of the officer from whom the appeal is taken. The concurring vote of three rnembers of the board of
adjustment or the village council shall be necessary to reverse any order, requirement, decision or
determination of any such administrative official, or to decide in favor of the applicant on any matter
upon which it is required to pass under this chapter, or to effect any variation in this chapter. Any
request denied by the board of adjustment or the village council shall not be resubmitted for a period of
90 days after the date of denial.
(Ord. No. 7-08, � 2, 4-10-2008)
Sec. 78-67. - Appeal to circuit court.
Any person or persons aggrieved by any decision �f the board of adjustment or the village
council under this article, may appeal such decision in accordan�e with state law.
(Or�. No. 7-08, § 2, 4-90-2008)
�ec. 78-68. -� ime limitation on variances.
The board of adjustment or the village council may prescribe a reasonable time limit within
which the action for which the variance is required shall be ber�un or completed or both. However, if no
tirr� limit is spe�ified by the board of ad;usfiment or the village co��ncil, the� the variance shall expire
within six months from the date of gr�nt, unless a buiiding permit based upan and incorporating the
v�riance is issued within the six-month perio� and construction has begun ther
; or��. n��o. 7-os: � 2 4-90-2008)
�ec. ��-�9. - Fil�ng fee.
(a i Upon filirg an application wit� the boar� af adyustmen� �;r #he village council under this articie,
the applicant shall pay a fee to the village at the time of filing of such application. The fee sha(!
be in an amount as set by resolution ofi the villa�e caunc9l and on fil� in the village clerk's office,
shall not be reimbursabie, ar�d is intenf��d tv d�fray the �ost� af aaministering, processing and
reviewing the application. Additionally, to cove� a!! a�ditiona! administrative casts, actual or
anticipated, inciuding, but n�t limited to, advertising costs, e+igineering fees, consultiny fees,
attorneys` fees and special studiss, the applicant sF�al! compensate the village for all such costs
prior to the processing of the application, Qr not I�ter than 30 days after final application
approval, whichever is determine� as appro�riate by the c�mmun��y development direetor, or
designee.
(�) The building official may waiv� the filing fee when the ap�li�ant seeks a variance to replace an
existing screened swimming pool enclosure with � new screened swimming pool enclosure
having the same dimensions but a greater height than the existing screened swimming pool
enclosure.
4 of 5 5/2� 2Q 13 2:00 PM
Municode http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&client1L�13�6� MKeq...
(Ord. No. 7-08, § 2, 4-10-2008)
Secs. 78-70-78-90. - Reserved.
_
FOOTNOTC(S):
__ _.._ ... . ................_....._..... _.__..............__._....._................._........_...._......._........___ .......... ......_............__........._._._._.......... _....__.................._.....................___.........__................ .
--- (2) ---
Editor's not� Ord. No. 7-08, § 2, adopted April 10, 2008, amended article lll in its entirety to read as herein set out.
Former article !!l, §§ 78-61-78-69 pertained to similar subject matter, and derived from app. A, §§ Xlll(A)—(I) of the
1977 Code. Back
i of 5 5'2/2013 2:00 PM
Municode http://library.municode.com/printaspx?Yr
Tequesta, Florida, Code of Ordinances » PART II - CODE OF ORDINANCES » Chapter 78 - ZONING »
ARTICLE XII. - FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION » DIVISION 1. - ADMINISTRATION » Subdivision 7. -
Variances and Appeals »
................... ._..._......................................_..................................._....... ..........__..........__... ........_......_.........__..._............._............_...................._................._........_...__....._._...._...................._..._......... .......... ........._.......... ..
Subdivision 7. - Variances and Appeais
Sec. 78-811. - General.
Sec. 78-812. - Appeals.
Ssc. 78-813. - Limitations on authoriy to arant variances.
Sec. 78-814. - Restrictions in floodwavs.
Sec. 78-815. - Historic buildinqs.
Sec. 78-816. - Functionally dependent uses.
Sec. 78-8� 7. - Considerations for issuance of variances.
Sec. 78-818. - Conditiors for issuance of variances.
Sec. 78-811. - General.
Pursuant to F.S. § 553.73(5), the board of adjustment shall hear and decid� on req:�ests for
appeals and requests for variances from the strict application of the requirements of this article and
the flood resistant construction requirements of the Florida Building Code. This section does not apply
to Section 3109 of the Florida Building Code, Building.
(Ord. No. 9-12, § 1, 11-8-2012)
Sec. 78-812. - Ap�eals.
The board of adjustrrient srall hear and decide appeals wher� it is �ileged tr:ere is an error in
any requir�ment, deci�ion, or �eterrnination made by the floodpiain administrator in the administration
and enfcrcer,�ent or this article. Any� person aggrieved by the decision of the �oaT� af adju�tment may
a�p�al such decis±on to t�e circuit court, as provided by Florida Statut¢s.
(Ord. No. 9-12, 6 1, 11-8-�012)
Sec. 78-813. - Limi�atiQns on autharity to grant variances.
The board of a�justment shall base its decis�ons on variances on technical ju�tificaiions
su�mitte� by �ppl;can:s, the cor�siderations for issuance in section 7�-817 �f th�s articf�, the
conditiQns of i5suanc� set forth in section 78-818 of th�s article, and the commer?ts ana
re ,ommendation� of the floodplair; administrator and the buifding official. Thp board of adjustment has
the right t:� atta�,h such conditions as it deems necessary to further the purpos�s and �bJectiv�s of
this articie.
(Ord. Na 9-12, § 1, 11-8-2Q12)
Sec. 78-814. - Restrictions in floodways.
A variance shall not be issued for any proposed development in a floodway if any increase in
base flood elevations would result, as evidenced by the applicable analyses and certifications
1 of 3 5/2/2013 2:01 PM
Murucode http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientII�13868&HTMReq...
required in section 78-803 of this article.
(Ord. No. 9-12, § 1, 11-8-2012)
Sec. 78-815. - Historic buildings.
A variance is authorized to be issued for the repair, improvement, or rehabilitation of a historic
building that is determined eligible for the exception to the flood resistant construction requirements of
the Florida Building Code, Existing Building, Chapter 11 Historic Buildings, upon a determination that
the proposed repair, improvement, or rehabilitation will not preclude the building's continued
designation as a historic building and the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic
character and design of the building. If the proposed work precludes the building's continued
designation as a historic building, a variance shall not be granted a�d the building and any repair,
improvement, and rehabilitation shall be subject to the requirements of the Florida Building Code.
(Ord. No. 9-12, § 1, 11-8-2012)
Sec. 78-816. - Functionally dependent uses.
A variance is authorized to be issued for the construction or substantial improvement
necessary for the conduct of a functionaliy dependent use, as defined in #his chapter, provided the
variance meets the requirements of section 78-814 of this article, is the minimum necessary
considering the flood hazard, and all due consideration has been given to use of inethods and
materials that minimize flood damage during occurrence of the base flood.
(Ord. ,No. 9-12, § 1, 19-8-2012)
Sec. 78-817. - Considerations for issuance of variances.
In reviewing requests for variances, the board of adjustrr�nt shafl consider all technical
evalua�ions, al! relevant factors, all other appficable provisions p� the Florida Bui�ding Code, this
chapter, and the following:
(1) �"ne danger that mate: and debris may be swep� or�to otFi�r lands resulting in further
injury ar damage;
( The danger ta life and property due to flot��in� er �ra�ion d�maae;
� The suscppti�ility ef the �ropo�ed development, in.�uding �c�n±�nts, to flood damage and
�he �ffect c�f sueh damage on curr�nt and fut�are c�tnrne�s;
(`�) The im�ort�nce of the services proti�ided by the prop�sed developrrt�nt to the village:
� The availabil;ty of altArnate locations for t�i� pr�posed �evelopment that are su�ject to
!� risk of f(ooding or erosiot�;
��) The compatibility of �he proposed dev�lo�ment v�ith exist�ng and anticipated
dev�lopment;
� The relationship of the proposed �evElaprr�nt to the �am���hensive plan and floodpiain
management program for the area;
�$) "� hp safety of access to the pr�qerty in time� of flooding for ar�+inary and emergency
vehicles;
�g) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and d�b�is and sediment transport
of The floodwaters and the effects of wave action, if applicab�e, expected at the site; and
t��) The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions including
maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and
2 of 3 5/2%2013 2:01 PM
Mumcode http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientII�13868&HTMReq...
water systems, streets and bridges.
(Ord. No. 9-12, § 1, 11-8-2012)
Sec. 78-818. - Conditions for issuance of variances.
Variances shall be issued only upon:
(1) Submission by the applicant, of a showing of good and sufficient cause that the unique
characteristics of the size, configuration, or topography of the site limit compliance with
any provision of this article or the required elevation standards;
� Determination by the board of adjustment that:
a• Failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship due to the
physical characteristics of the land that render the lot undevelopable; increased
costs to satisfy the requirements or inconvenience do not constitute hardship;
b• The granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional
threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, nor create nuisances,
cause fraud on or victimization of the public or conflict with existing local laws and
ordinances; and
�• The variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford
relief;
� Receipt of a signed statement by the applicant that the variance, if granted, shall be
r�corded in the office of the clerk of the court in such a manner that it appears in the
chain of title of the affected parcel of land; and
� If the request is for a variance to allow construction of the lowest floor of a building, or
substantiai improvement af a building, below the required elevation, a copy in the record
of a written notice from the floodplain administrator to the applicant for the variance,
specifying the difference between the base flood elevation ar,d the proposed elevation of
the lowest floor, stating that the �ost of federal filood insurance will be commensurate
with the increased ri�k resufting from the reduced floor elevation (up to amounts as high
as $25.00 for $10Q.Q0 of insuranye ccverage), and stating that construction b�lo�v the
aase flood elevation increases ri: ks to life and �r�perty.
("Ord. No. 9-12, § 9, 91-8-2012)
f of3 5;2;2013 2:�1 FM
Municode http://library.municode.com/printaspx?l�&clientll�13868&HTMReq...
Tequesta, Florida, Code of Ordinances » PART II - CODE OF ORDINANCES » Chapter 76 - WATERWAY
CONTROL » ARTICLE I. - IN GENERAL »
ARTICLE I. - IN GENERAL
_.._. . _ _._.._._ . _ _......_ ___..... _ _._..... .. _ ......... _ ._... _. __.. __
Sec. 76-1. - Jurisdiction.
Sec. 76-2. - Definitions.
Sec. 76-3. - Commercial docks.
Sec. 76-4. - Boathouses and boat sheiters.
Sec. 76-5. - Anchorinq of vessels.
Sec. 76-6. - Discharqe of refuse.
Sec. 76-7. - Variances.
Sec. 76-8. - Maintenance.
Secs. 76-9-7Fi-19. - Reserved.
Sec. 76-1. - Jurisdiction.
The purpose of this chapte� is to provide regulations for boating operatiors, as wel� a� the
construction, maintenance and use of docks, piers, pilings, boatlifts and other similar structures
associated with the operation, parking and storage of watercraft within the public waters of the state
compr9sing the Loxahatchee River and the intracoastal waterway and all creeks, canals or watenrvays
or tributaries connected therewith, located within the geographical boundaries of the village.
(Ord. No. 7-12, § 1, 6-14-2012)
Sec. 76-2. - Definitior�s.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, snaii have the me�ning�
ascribed to them in this sec:ion except Nhere the context clearly indicates a different t�aning. �111
words used in th� present :ens� ir�elude the futur�; al! words �n the singular num�er inclu�e te�p �E;�ra!
and the plural the singular.
Car.al widtn �r�itr respPlt ta any cock or pi�;r to which the measure applfes, m�an� th� s�raight
line distance befinr�en tFe e�ge of the �djacent pmperty on one side of ihe canai, measurecJ to ;hs
nearest point of the edge of she adjacent property on the opposite side of the canal, as se� for#h on
the applicabl� r�corded plats.
D�ck means a fixed or floatin� �tructure, including mcorings, cn or over �ubmerged lands, used
for th� �urposs af berthing buoyant vessel� or for fishing, swimming, or viPwing the waterway.
Dolphin rneans a cluster of ciosely �riven piles used as a fender for a dock or as a moo►ing or
guide for watercraft, but not used as a �hannef marker or dock piling.
Mean high water means thP avsrage height of the high waters over a 19-year period, or, for
shorter periods of observ�tion, the aver�ge height of the high waters after corrections are applied to
eliminate known variations and to produc� the result of the equivalent of a mean 19-year vaiue.
Alternatively, mean high water may mean the average height of the high waters as established and
accepted by the U.S. Army Corps ef Engineers.
1 0 £4 5/2/2013 2:06 P1�4
Municode http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?lr
Mean high-water line means the intersection of the tidal plane of inean high water with the
shore or canal edge.
Mean low water means the average height of the low waters over a 19-year period, or, for
shorter periods of observation, the average height of the low waters after corrections are applied to
eliminate known variations and to produce the result of the equivalent of a mean 19-year value.
Alternatively, mean low water may mean the average height of the low waters as established and
accepted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Mean low-water line means the intersection of the tidal plane of inean low water with the shore
or canal edge.
Mooring piling means a post, pillar, piling or stake used for the purpose of berthing buoyant
vessels either temporariiy or indefinitely, for a finite period, whether or not used in conjunction with a
dock.
Pier shall have the same meaning as "dock".
Prot�usion means the encroachment of any part of any dock, pier, piling, boat lifting device,
moored watercraft (including the watercraft's outboard motors or inboard propellers or lower unit
transmissiQns and propellers, its navigational lights, its ladders, and any other appurtenances attached
to the watercraft) or any combination of these, into a prohibited area.
Setback sha8 have the same meaning as set forth in chapter 78, zoning.
Waterway w�dth, with respect to any dock or pier to which the measur� applies, means the
straight fine distance from the point at which the centerline of the dock or pier intersects tne mean
high-water line, measured to the nearest point on the mean low-water �inP of the apposite shore of the
waterv�ray.
(Ord. .No. 7-12, § ?, 6-14-2012)
Sec. �5�3. � C�mmer�ial docks.
(a) No c�mmercial docks shall be permitted within the R-1, R�•'�A and R�iOr districts.
t�1 Docks, pier�, inooring aevices and seawalis focated witnin the singi�-family dwelling districts
R�1 and R-1A shall be for single-family use only. This sectian shall not be read to prchibit
cl�cks, pie�s, mooring devices and seawalls owned c�r �peeated t�y any ha�r�eQwners
ass�ciat'son f�� the benefit of its members. Furkher, r?othirg her�ir� shali prevent any
hnme�wrers associatien from adopting rules and regulatior�� governing the use of association
own�d ��r op�rated dacks, piers, mooring devi ;es and seawalls fc�r the ber�fit of its members.
,Ord. IVc. 7-�-2, � 1, �-94�2012)
Sec. 76-4. - 8oathouses an�! boat shelters.
No baath�use or enclosed boat shelter shall be permitted to be locate� �,�aten,vard of a sea�vall
or mean high-uvater lin�;, �r�hichever is applicable.
(Ord. No. 7-12, § 1, 6-94-2092)
Sec. 76-5. - Anchoring of vessels.
(a) No person shall anchor or cause, permit or allow any other person under his control or
2 of 4 5./2/2013 2:06 PM
Municode http://library.municode.com/printaspx?lr=&clientII�i3868&HTMReq...
command to anchor any live aboard vessel within the R-1 and R-1A single-family dwelling
districts, for a period of time in excess of 72 continuous hours during any consecutive 30-day
period, unless such vessel or watercraft is anchored in an approved mooring area with the
consent of the owner of such approved mooring area.
�b) The anchoring of live aboard vessels in all districts shall be at an approved mooring area and
secured by approved methods and/or devices.
��) For the purpose of this section, "live aboard vessel" shall mean:
(1 } qny vesset being used as a living unit for use on water and/or fitted for use as a dwelling
and/or with sleeping accommodations;
� Any vessel represented as a place of business, or professional or other commercial
enterprise, and providing or serving on a long-term basis the essential services of
functions typically associated with a structure or other improverrient to real property,
and, if used as a means of transportation, such use is clearly a secondary or subsidiary
use; or
(3) Any vessel used by any club or any other association of whatever nature when clearly
demonstrated to serve a purpose other than a means of transportation.
� Commercial fishing vessels are expressly excluded from the term "live-aboard vessel.
(Ord. No. 7-12, § 1, 6-14-2012)
Se�. �6-6. - Di�charge of refuse.
No person shall discharge, or permit or allow any other person on a vessel or watercraft under
his control or cQmmand to discharge, any human or animal excreta from any head, toilet or similar
facility on any vessel or watercraft, or throw, discharge, deposit or leave, or cause or permit to be
thrown, discharged, deposited or left, from any vessel or watercraft any refuse matter of any
description into the waters located within the area to which this article applies.
(Ord. No. 7-12, § 1, 6-14-2012)
SeL. 76-7. - Variances.
(a} Ary� person desiring a variance fram the :�rms of this ci�apter sn�l! make application for such
vari�nce to the zoning board af adjustment o� the village in �ccordance with the procedures set
fQ►th �n this section.
tb) !r c�rder to authorize any variance from the terms �f th�s cha�ter, the board of adjustment MUST
fintl w�th �Eispect t� the proposed project as �al�o��.rs:
�� ) Th� variance being requested me�ts �h� clefinitio� �f tt�e term "variance" as that term is
used and understood in chapter 78, zoning.
;f} No hazardous conditior: wou!a be cre�t�d.
� The flow of water would not be im�eded c�r interfered with.
��' ) No obstruction to navic�atior: wo!�;d occur.
` tt would not interfere with trac�i�ional public uses of the w�terway inciuding, but not IimiteG
to, swimming, fishing, or boating.
; !t wc�uld not crea#e an �ppreciable obstructian of U�ate�way views or otherwise detract
from aesthetic values.
��� It would not appreciably disrupt, interfere with, or disturb marine or benthic life.
t �t would not contribute to the �oliution of the ;nraterway or the degradation of its condition.
� It would not interfere with the lawful rights of riparian owners.
(101 It woul� be consistent with any other applicable laws, r�les or plans.
i of 4 5/2i 2013 2:06 PM
Municode http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientII.�13�6��iH'1'Mlteq...
(Ord. No. 7-12, § 1, 6-14-2012)
Sec. 76-8. - Maintenance.
Any structure or device constructed, erected or installed pursuant to this chapter shall be kept
in good repair by the by the owner thereof and shall be subject to removal by the village in the event
that such structure or device is determined to be unsafe or to create a navigation hazard by the
village's building official or engineer. Any cost incurred by the village associated with said removal
shall be assessed against the owner; however, notice and opportunity for a hearing pursuant to F.S.
ch. 162, shall be afforded to the owner prior to such removal by the village.
(Ord. No. 7-12, § 1, 6-14-2012)
Secs. 76-9-76-19. - Reserved.
4 � f 4 5,'2/2013 2:06 PM
TAB 2
THE QUASI-JUDICI�L HEARING
PROCE S S
The Quasi-Judicial Hearing Process
Florida law requires that requests for certain development orders be
determined by a quasi-judicial process (i.e. site-specific rezonings, site plan
approvals, variances, and special exceptions). See �, Board of Countv
Commissioners of Brevard C�unt 627 �o. 2d 469, 474 (Fla. ? 993)
(rezonings). In a quasi judicial hearing, adopted standards and criteria are applied to
a specific project. The local government's ordinances must contain the standards
and criteria to be applied during these hearings. See �, Drexel v. City of Miami
Beach, 64 So. 2d 317, 319 (Fla. 1953). These standards and criteria must not
discriminate, nar infringe on constitutio�ial guara�ltees by invading personal or
praperty rghts untlecessarily or unreasonably, nor deny due process or equal
�rotec�i�n under the laws, nor impair obligations of cant�act. See �, Griffin v.
Sharpe, 65 So. 2d 7S l, 752 (Fla. � 9�3).
�'h� �u��i j�dicial b�dy mus� bas� its d�cis��r� t� ��ant or deny a req�?est for a
�.ev�,l�pment �rd�r solely� on wr�ether tre �_ro�osed proje�t �eets the applica�le
stan�i�r�is a�d criteria i� the ordinance, �iry of ����� v. �ran�e Coun�y, 299 So.
��i 657 659-50 (FEa. 4th DCA 1974). It i� unLonsti�tion�l to d�viate from these
standa�ds and criteria. Friends of �'ireat S�uthern, Inc. v. Citx of Hall��o�d, 954
So. 2d 82I, 831 (Fla. �th �CA ����7); lYlian�i-I�ade �o�v. �m.�ipoint H�ldin
Inc., 863 So. 2d 375, 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (quasi judicial boards cannot make
decisiors based on anything but the local criteria enacted to govern their actions).
During quasi judicial hearings, applicants are entitled, as a matter of due
process, to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Jennings v. Dade
Countv, 589 So. 2d 1337, 1340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). This includes the right to
cross-examine witnesses, present evidence, and demand that witnesses testify
under oath. Id. Finally, applicants are entitled to a decision based on cornpetent
substantial evidence contained in the record. Id.
Opinions and objections of residents to a proposed development do not
constitute competent substantial evidence in the record to deny an application. See
�, Pollard v. Palm Beach Countv, 560 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Citv of
Apopka, 299 Sc. 2d at 659-50 �"The quasi judicial function ... must be exercised
on th� basis of the facts adduced; numerous objections �y adjoining landowners
may not pro�erly be �iven ev�n a cumulative effect"}. Quasi judici�l hea�in�s are
not suppos�� to be ��p3�larty contests. Sez Citv of Apo�ka, 2�9 ���� 2� at 659-60;
C�netta v. ���v uf �a�asot�, 4�� ��. 2d 1Q51, 1052 (Fla. �'� �C� 1��1i.
Westlaw.
Page 1
71 So3d 147, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1930
(Cite as: 71 So.3d 147)
H 92 Constitutional Law
92XXVII Due Process
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 92XXVII(F) Administrative Agencies and
First District.
Proceedings in General
Joe A. BUSH and Mary A. Bush, Petitioners, 92k4028 k. Judicial review. Most Cited
v.
Cases
CITY OF MEXICO BEACH, Florida, Respondent.
Where a party is entitled as a matter of right to
No. 1D10-5843. seek review in the circuit court from administrative
Aug. 31, 2011. action, the circuit court must determine whether: (1)
Rehearing 17enied Oct. 10, 2011. procedural due process is accorded, (2) the essential
requirements of the law have been observed; and (3)
t�e administrative findings and judgment are sup-
Background: Landowners petitioned for certiorari ported by competent, substantial evidence. U.S.C.A.
review of decision by circuit court dismissing their Const.Amend. 14 .
amended petition for writ of certiorari from denial by
city of their application to divide a residential lot.
f 2�, Administrative Law and Procedure 15A
°�683
Holdin�: The District Court of Appeal, Van
Nortwick, J., held that landowners were entitled to
certiorari review of city's denial of their application to I SA Administxative Law and Procedure
the extent that their netition raised issues other than 15AV Judicial Review of Administrative Deci-
t�e consisten�y of the order. sinn�
15A V A In r eneral
15 Ak68 i Further �eview
Petition granted. �
15Ak683 k. Scope. Most Cite� Cases
�Jest Heaeln�tes
C���tat�tiom�l Lar?� 92 �4023
� i A��r��istrative Law an� Pr�ee��:re 15 �
� 92 Cons�itutioral La�v
9�XXVi1 i7ue Process
92XXVII(F) Administrativ� Agercies and
15A Ad.ninisxative Lav� and ProcPdure Proce°di�gs in �eneral
15AV Jadicial Review of Admiiust;at:ve Dec: G2k4028 k. 3udicial review. Most Citeci
si�ns Case��
15AV D Scope of Review in General
15Ak', 41 k. In general. Most Cite� Cases �er� a party is entitled as a matter of right to
�eek review in the circuit court from administrative
Constitutional Law 92 �'40�8 action, upon review of the circuit court's judgment,
Dis� Court of Appeal determines: (1) whether the
�O 2013 Thomson Reuters. No ^laim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 2
71 So.3d 147, 36 Fla. L. Week1yD1930
(Cite as: 71 So.3d 147)
circuit court afforded procedural due process, and (2) j51 Constitutiomal Law 92 �3866
applied the correct law. U_S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.
92 Constitutional Law
j3j C'�nstit�ational I.aw 92 �3879 92XXVII Due Process
92XXVII(B) Protections Provided and Dep-
92 Constitutional Law rivations Prohibited in General
92XXVII Due Process 92k3866 k. Fairness in general. Most Cited
92XXVIIB) Protections Provided and Dep- Cases
rivations Fronibited in General
92k3878 Notice and Hearing Constitutional Law 92 ��3879
92k3879 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
92 Constitutional Law
Thc qu�iits oi dur Eroce.,; re<lnire� in a�ua- 92XXVIi Due Frocess
si-judicrai h,°,�rin�r is f�c,t ihe s��iue a, ii�at tu which a 92XXVII(B) Protections Provided and Dep-
par�y lu luit ju�licial hearing is eiuiticel. U.S.C.A. rivations Prohibited in General
Const.Amend. 14. 92k3878 Notice and Hearing
92k3879 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
j4] Adre►nni�trative L�w and Proceriure IlSA
��3fl? �''ert�in Etanc?ard� r,f ha�ic f�irless roitst he ad-
brr?�1 tc� in ordc:r Lo afforci �luc pmcc;s: thus, a yua-
15A Adrriinistrative i,aw and P�-�ceciure s�-ii��li�:�al decia�rn� ha.<ed uror, rhe recc�rcl i� n�t r_on-
? SAIV Powers and Pr�cee�?ngs of Administrative �'�i��i��� it miniinal stanc3ara� of due pruces� a�e denied.
Agenc?es, Offi�ers and Agents U.S.C.A. Coi�st.An�end. 14.
15AIV�A� In General
15Ak�09 � roceedir�gs i�i ver�erai j6j �:'onsti��tn���l �,aw �� ° `�38�9
15�Lk;i i. K. Jud?cial procedure; ap-
plical�iL?� ii_ ��,r��r°ai. ",�gst i:it�� Cases 92 C`on�ti�lira�sal;_� �:��
92�:��%:i i�ae �rc��_es5
::��a��iSySs�a���� L��r �n€� �'���c��a�a �5�i C��l? 9?.�XVI?(�;� p�utec���rts.s P;•c�?c'•_zr� ar_d �er
t°i:�a�i��ns P=ahybi?�d in Genera]
��i�, .�i�A.i1?;1`�CCaiIVe: i-il'.v afl� i'ICG�<aUI'e _�-'r._S'� ��? r�c7i?C. a'I� i'L-c 1"1?6
� � �i�i' �'CJ�ti%e�"5 �Ti� �'I°OCe�u721�S Oi f`�dT1Il1St2°�1tiVE �� ��`-� ='%� k_ :'1 �;yi?El`c21. IVi(}�t l_itZ!j �':1St,5
Agen�:es, Of`_cers �-��i g�ents
I S_�.t�'iA�; In Cre.r�ral 4 qi�;?;i j,i�ii� i,il lienrir�� �ener�ll• „��F°ic ba�ic
���C.S�`� PrCCE,",C�IPi�$ 121 ��8I1e1'al C�Ue E)1.�C(;3�ti ;'NC�tit1'C[ll�'[7f.'� il ,�tL' �)�li�lititi �i[f; (iPOb'1(�ECI
? SP�k313 k. Juclicial proced�i, ap- ii��tic.�� ol tl?_c� I>>.��ru.� ;�i:l ��� {�p�u��tu.iity t�� Le heard.
piic�biliiy of rules cf �vidence. Most Cited Cases U,�,C.P.. Const.Amend._14.
.)u�i�;i j��cli� ial �,�c,c �c cii���r; are n�T contr•ol�ed by f� �:��A_,g �;�� Ft��tyi��g 41� ��=�'?33�(3�
sii�iel nii�s �,f ev�idence aitd ���rocecli�rr.
414 Zoning and Planning
C? 2013 ''_'hcroson Reuterc. No vlaim to Orig. US Cav. Werks.
Page 3
71 So.3d 147, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1930
(Cite as: 71 So.3d 147)
414VII Administration in General Cases
414k1335 Proceedings in General
414k1339 Notice and Hearing Landowners who alleged issues other thur. con-
414k1339(� k. Hearings and meetings sistency ef development order were entitled to certi-
in general. Most Cited Cases orari review of city's denial of their application to
divide a residential lot to the extent that their petition
Zoning and �'lanning 414 °�Y346(3) raised issues other than the consiste�icy of tlie order.
West's F.S.A. � 1633215.
414 Zoning and Planning
414V 11 Administration in General *Y4� .i. Patrick Flovd, Port St. Joe, for Petitioners.
414k1335 Proceedings in General
4?4k1340 Deter!nination David A. Thariaque and S. Brent Spain of Theriaqae
414k1340(3) k. Fin�ings, reasons, and � Spain, Tallahassee, for Responder�t.
record. Most Cited Cases
VAN NORTWICK, J.
T_n. ��iasi- z�>��in� ����,�c�;e�lin<�s. the �:�rtiQS Illf21 petitioners, Joe A. and Mary A. Bush, seek
mu�t he ahi? te �resent evidence rrnss-�°.xamine certiorari review of an order of the circuit court dis-
���itilcsses, anel bc iniormect oi� ali ilic ta�is upun wlii„h missing their amended petition far writ of certiarari by
thc� con��zli5sirn� ac�,. which they challenged the denial by the rity of
Mexico Beach, respondent, oi their appiication to
f 8j Certio�•ari 73 �� divide a residential lot ("lot split applicatton"l. We
grant certiorari relief because the circuit court did not
73 Certiorari address the subsiantiai due process issues raiseci in the
73I Nature and Grounds amended petition. Thus, the circuit couri diu not en-
73ki k. Recau�se t� vr pendency of otner �age i�i the three-;�rong reviev� req�ired by Ciiv u;
proceeding. Most Cited Cases �E'�f' £eacli_ v. ✓aill ci��t �19 So.='ct 6�� 670
�---------��
— �� 198?�,"�i � � � , .
n. ull� � �X 11JS CQ�1541t1±iE:.{ `�, ` lOi`;ii4C Gi �i
clea��ly established p��inc•ip?e c�r Ia�v resu�*�t�g sr_ �
Consistency issues niu�t ';e raised ir z�i ac:iot� �
cF t}' � r r '�✓ a� 1 Oi �USt1C� .3I"tCl, C11P.i'E:fOIC, � dG'�iu1 CU1"E; iI'Uil"i
fll�� �i7i1':ii's«I2t t� .,�Ct1C1"1 i�x`_ 111.��vS ��ai:ES. °t� :�i ....- ,
ille i.S9C1"i req ii?I'0i21c,1'_iS Oi I�V4'." L%iiV �C'1'ilZ1- '•-
VePSPj;I affeCied p3I'�y to r•Piil� :�� "P.�VO �ciic?i1 f0� � n , c ��i � � t i � r
Kenuttic I_,rnd ��c-�i�. �F9 So.:.�. � 1��_. ��>1 (�-1
rleclar�.tcry, irjju�lc�i�c ,�i rth,, rel ei ��.rr � a��.v — - --
� lst DC.v 20 (qu�ti�g ��cl-!�a�ci C � ur?t�- �.5'. i�.
lecal goverrLmer.t, and cznnoi be bre?{ght :f, a;��*it:on _. __ ___
I;1�'l L�d.._7b7 So_2d �3F K45 (F_l�. '�Q 11).
for writ of certiorari. West':> 1=.`�. �=. � 153.321.�. '—
n ,_ a FI�I:. As st�:te� in �i:')-_�1_�c�r1iel�i �c:_�:�h'_
j9j ���a�r� �ne� �'���mr;n3 �l:� `'�wl�?� !��rillcmt, 419 So.?d 6�4. 6�6 rF�s.1982):
414 2oning and Planning VVhe;e a party is eniitled as a matter of
� 14X J��icial Re���ew or R�liei
414X(A? In General righY to seen r�view ir. the circuit ceurt
from adm�r.is±rative ac:ior., the ci=cuit
414i<i572 ilahz�e ard Form cf�ernedy court must determine [1] whether proce-
414k1575 k. Certiorari. Mest Cited
d,�ral c?ue process is accorc�ed, [2] v✓h.ther
C 2013 Thoms�n P.e��ters. No Claim to Orig. US Cov. ��Jorks.
Page 4
71 So.3d 147, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1930
(Cite as: '�1 So.3d 147)
the essential requirements of the law have Bushes allege that, although they could not obtain a
been observed, and f3] whether the ad- hearing on their lot split application, other property
ministrative findings and iudgment are owners in Mexico Beach presented and obtained ap-
supported by competent substantial evi- proval and acceptance of the division of parcels for
dence. The district court, upon review of purposes of sale or development. This delay prompted
the circuit court's judgment, then deter- the Bushes to file a mandamus action against the City
min�s [ 1] whether the circuit court af- to compel the City Counoil to hold a final hearing.
forded procedural due process and [2) ap- After an order to show cause was issued by the circuit
plied the correct law. court on March 23, 2010, the Bushes were notified
that a final hearing before the City Council was to be
The Bushes filed a lot split application with the held on Apri1 13, 2010. At the outset of the April 13,
City on September 8, 2009, alleging that, when they 2010 hearing, the City Council again tabled the dis-
divided their lot into two lots in 2005, they met all the cussion of the Bushes' lot split application to provide
re�uirer.�ents of the City's land development regula- time for the City to retain a land use attorney. The City
tions. They assert before this court that they also met Council, however, did allow counsel for the Bushes to
u'�e dua: requirement that their application comply speak.
with the City's comprehensive nlan because section
*�49 ?.01.0? (B), City of Mexico BPach Lar.d De- �'hile th� Bushes' application was pending, the
velopment Regulations, provides that "[a] develop- City Council was also considering the adoption of a
ment shall be considered consistent with the adopted new land deveiopment regulation thai, among oiher
�omprehensive Plan if the develcpment canforms to things, addressed the subdivision of prope:ry and
ihe prov?saons set forih in the City of Niexico F3each require�3 i�ei.��lborhood consistency when iots are
Lar.d Development Code." See Bd. of Coa��2tl- subdivided. The City Council adopted this new ardi-
�onana' oFBi•e:�cu�d Colintl> ��. Sr,v�le� 627 So.2d 469, .iance on �pr:1 13, 2G1�, ar,d inccrporateu the :e-
�7f� ;F1a 19931 ("[A] lanclowner seeking to re�cnc: ;�uir�r�et;ts o_f r;�e r.ew ordinance as �ection 3.07.00 of
property has th� buraen of proving that the proposal is tbe C ity`c Land lleveiopment Code
c;�nsistent witr� the co�npreher.sive plan ar.d comp?ies
ti�iitl� a:? �ro;;edurax requi:•emerts of the za.?ing c�rdi� At it.� re�u;�{7° meetinn on i�Ray 11, 20I0, ttle C'i;�y
ua��ce.")• C.�ut�cil �t��e�i uuai�i,noti,ly, w�ihou� discu�si.�si, to
r.i.c;�iy lh�L I���I_ic•�' 1;;+ ;�lit a�;�licatiuii. In iis �inal oruer,
fi }�e.��r=t�� :;n ��;e ?et sp?i� applicatior� �vas he�d r.hz City �curc=l f;,�.rt�j iY;n; �.he :��pl�cation fa1e.� ta
�?Ei�!"+', �it(; `';1ilClit� �?tCi ��7:I1i2�'r3JaC(� Oil °�CtCi��f'i �, !�<)�Ti .S�liil ;ilc' ti�`�%1`-'-EI1t�,tF(l la:l� <��Ve�(),`�tiif.'bli
2O��, a�,�te� �iliieh :he Plan��ing and Loriing boazd c%�ci;n�reP t�.i�! iuro ��ii^ies in the Future Lai�d Js: j
��ot�d un�r.i;no«sly ta recor_unenci �eniai ef the �,p- :�?erien' of t!��e ritv's Comprehensive Pian. Bei��� anci �
pl�ca�ion. Tl_��� lot split application was sehed�le�l fot h�re, rh.e Bt_s�e� asseit that tl�e tie��ly-passect or��ii
»�z:�iic hearing be;ore tF�e i�Sexico Beach �'_ty �'c�t�nLii na_,cv carmct be apntiect to �he ap��lication F �'' a-�d tha.t '
on October 13 1009. T�he City Council, however, they neither nad'been advised that the City was relying
voted to ta��ie the $t�shes` �pplicaiion for fucure con- on �he�,, fi�turF land �ise policies nor gi��en an oppof°-
sideration. tunity to argue in support of their application.
`'G� i�lti Il�Xi �iX I11GriI�1S, �eSj�lt� :1U.'1:e1'4US I'�- F:`::'_ ��il�t�i�i �I1C F,O-Cc11GC� "j�E11C11riU OtCl-
c�uests, the B�ishes were unable to obtain � hearing nance doctritte", see Smit6i v. Cih% o�le«r-
before the City Council on their application. The �var�,-, 383 So.2d 681 (Fla. ?d DCA 1980)
C� 1013 Thomscn Reuters. TIc C1_aim to C?rig. US Gov. �x'�rks.
Page 5
71 So.3d 147, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1930
(Cite as: 71 So.3d 147)
applies has not been litigated.
r8�r9� While it is c�r�ect, as the City �roues, thar.
f��lT-�1�?_���l��l The Bushe,� timclv sou�ht certio- cor�sistency issues must be raised ir� an action filed
r�ri re��ie��� in the circuit crn�rt. comp(ainin�� r,l� tliese pursuant to section 1633215 and cannot be brought in
nuniez�c�lis alle��cd due, prvicess �-iol�iiioi�5 ancl assertiiig a petition for writ of certiorari see StYa�u�h�an Hoerse,
t}iat tliey iievai receivcd a yuasi-judieial h�ariiig Inc. 1-. Cih� of Ft. Lccutler•dctle, 967 So.2d 1121,
b�iore tlie C.ity Louncil. As the Third District ex- 1 125-26 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), tne Bnshes Iiave raised
plained in Jesznings i�. Dade Counfi, 589 So.2d 1337, more than consistency issues. Below and here, the
1340-41 (Fla. 3d DC.A 1991;: Bushes also contend that the r.umerous due process
violations preceding the entry of the final order by the
4t the otitset of nur r���ie�v o� the trinl c�uii's dis- City Council require that the order be quashed as
�ni;;al, we iiote ihat the quaiitv of dt�e prc�cess re- invalid by the circuit court and that they be granted a
quiral in a qi►asi-judisi.il Iica��ing i� nni tli� saui� as quasi judicial hearing, with all its attendant due pro-
tli,it �''1�0 t�� ��vhich a E�arty i�> Fuil j�idicial izearin<_ i� cess protections, befcre the �ity Counei: on their lct
ez�titlec3. Quasi-judicial proceeciings a�•e not con- split application. To the extent that petitioners' certi-
trnlle�i hy strict rule� of e� iclence ancl procc.dure. orari petition in the cir�uit court raised issues atl
None,th�l�5s, ��,tain 5ta.idards af 6asic f�rrness than the eonsistency of the developm�nt order, r,he
nii�:<t be adhered ic� ii� c7,clr:i io attor�l ilue process. Bushes were er.titled to eertic:ari re�vie��. Tl�orr�as v.
Consequently, a quasi-judicixl �lecisinu bri�e<i �iEx�n SertivE�nnee County, 734 So.2d 492, 496 (Fla. lst DCA
the record is not conclus�ive if niinimal st��u�larcls of 1999 ("Because the proceeding before the Goning
ciue ��uc�s� are deni�d. ,� qraasi-judicia� hearin� Board was quasi judicial, `�a tl entert [t1 objecting
g?rc�<iliy zizt�;?ts b.�.�ic° d�le process reUUireinents if neighbors'] challenge raised issues other thavn the
t}ic ��u�ties nr� r>r«vi<ie�i _intice t�+_�?iie he ����ng v�d sin consistency of the development order with the lccal
oppo: tn he he�rci. Tn �ra�si-j�idicial zc��ii�ig ��mprehensive plan, ftheyj a�e et�title�i to certiara�i
pr;r,:e�;dinbs, lh.; parties �iiust I,� ab'.e to pres�nt r�view.' „ (qn�,�ina �di,carion D����. C!Y., Ine. i-. Pn.bn
I3ec�c{r Cotrnn-�7Z1 So.%d i24���1241 ?�ia. 4th D�'�
c��ide:icc; eross el.amir.e ���it�iess�s, a�icl hc� ;r�- ��---
io���necl ot�all tl�e Ca<,ts upon wl�icl� trie c�nmli�siv�� 19981)); Coo1r v_ Cit; ofl,vr,_;� tiavr�r. %29 �o.?�i 54�,
��cis. �46 �~ia. l,t DC'A 199''L !gr��rr�in� Fe�it�ar ; w�ii oi
certiora�i ai;d au.3shi.� tr.e c�cuic a.;urt's ord,�r n�lir:g
��.1t8i1GriS OlrilirCC(�. U�� � � i li' t t�:<lt �OC�C V:�2S ert.tle� t(' $P.�,�C C�lrt7C.?1'? P°�'le«i lf?
) = Ol_ il`lOhLi. �_ tR� C_ty, t[18
circuit cou; d.is;nissed �l ar, petitio:� based circuit court rather tran an in;un�*,ior•_ tzr_c�er section
t�p�r. t�ie i:it✓'� arg �iict .r:F. Ft_��ii�� r:ad fa_iteci to 153.3� 15 ?���,:z�ase �;c��., ����3s ci�ail_,= t?�e Ci'�-"s
timely �il�; a seb��r�tr: cc�.i:�r• pursuai�i �o secti
developznerrt c�i°der �n ti.e ris�is tl�a� i� �%iolr�ted a ze�r
in_ r�vision �nd not beczuise it tvas i:? c�nfli�t witli
163.3? 15, Florida Stat�tes ;2009�, io :,1ia11enge the g p
C'i`y's dc±E.r�rinati�zi �h�t ttie:r lut s;��i� �ppiiraiien ��as *he com7iehe�sive �la�i;. �n rem�r�d_ ;f rhe Bashes
in�ansistert �:tr the C'itys �'ortl?;��I�eiisive Plan. The prevaii o� t�e:r co:rentic�r.s t�ef�re �hc ci_rcuit cou.t,
circuit cot:rt raled that ever_ tho?��h thPre �nay be due �he finai order of ihe Ciiy �ouncii wouid be quasnea
process is�ues wiiich cculd be d?cided in the Bushes' an� ��culd ha��e �o force an� ef'fe�t.
favor, "any relief rhis rour± could afford the [F3ushes]
wouid r� a? no z,racr;;,;�1 pur;�o,e aad ��croui� no� affect Petit�on Granted.
th.� underl;-ing :�alidity of ih� �ity C;ouneii's Fuial
Order denying the Lot Split Ap»i.i�;�tion." We cannot PADOVANO and HAWKES, JT ; conr,nr.
aaree.
r0- 2�l? Thomson Zteu*ers. No Cla:m to Orig. US G�v �?Jork_s.
Page 6
71 So.3d 147, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1930
(Cite as: 71 So.3d 147)
F1a.App. 1 Dist.,2Q11.
Bush v. City of Mexico Beach
71 So.3d 147, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1930
END OF DOCUMENT
�O 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Westlaw..
Page 1
658 So.2d 1069, 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1538
(Cite as: 658 So.2d 1069)
� Cited Cases
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Administrative Law and Procedure 15A �799
Second District.
15A Administrative Law and Procedure
The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF 15AV Judicial Revi�w of Administrative Deci-
SARASOTA COLTNTY, Florida, and Sarasota sions
County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, 15AV(E) Particular Questions, Review of
Petitioners, i5Ak799 k. Procedural questions. Most
�. Cited Cases
Roi�ald E. WEBBER, Respondent.
In reviewing circuit court's order regarding ad-
No. 95-00664. ministrative agency decision, appellate court deter-
June 30, 1995. mines whether circuit court afforded procedural due
Rehearing Denied Aug. 7, 1995. process and applied correct standard of law. U.S.C.A.
Const.Amend. 14; West's F.S.A. R.App.P.Rule
Fropariy owner challenged decision of board of
9�030(b)(2)(B ).
county commissior_ers denying variance request. The
Twelfth .iudicial Circuit Court, Sarasota County, L2j Zoning anct Ptan��ing 414 °�15s3
quashed board`s denial. County and board petitioned
for certiorari. The District Caurt of Appeal, Lazzara, 414 Zoning and Planning
J., hela t:�aY (11 board actzd in accord with parlia- 414IX V"ariances and F:xceptiors
nieniar� 1aw, pr�ced�aral due process, and "Uovern- 414TX B Proc�edings for Variances and Ex-
mPnt :n S�nshirs L��t✓" when :t reconsidered ancl c,;p�lans
�hanged iis vc�te approving v�.rpance, and (2) circuit 414K I55� i�. RehParing or reconsideration.
court �rrspluy�d vnong �tan€��rt� cf review. Most �itea Gases
(Formeri3� 414k547;
!3rder quasried an�l cause remanded.
Act or i�oard of county co~nmissioners in �eo-
J�Iest Aeadnotes pening public hearing and denying property owner's
vaf•iance, �ve minutes �fter approving variance, sat-
j� �u�r�ir.i�trative Law and Procedure 15A isf�� essent�ul requirvn.er�ts of parliamentary law, as
�796 short length of time Getween votes made it unrea-
s�nable ta �nfer that boarci'" change oz mind was det-
rimental ±o any righi acquired by owner from first
15A Admir_istrative Law and Procedure vcte, and board memner who moved to recansider
15AV Judicial Review of Adminis�raiive Deci-
variance was part of iri�ia� majority.
sions
15AV(E Particular Questions, Review of
i5Ak�96 k. Law questions in general. Most .I�1. �dmis�i�t►�ative La�- a�d ProLedmre 15A
O 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US �ov. �Iorks.
Page 2
658 So.2d 1069, 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1538
(Cite as: 65� Sa.2d 1069)
�482 15Ak482 k. Power and discretion to
order rehearing. Most Cited Cases
15A Administrative Law and Procedure
15AIV Powers and Proceedings ofAdministrative .�n e�set�tial rcc�uiren�<�u� for dc�liberative t��od}�'s
Agencies, Officers and Agents recun.�icler�tion of procceding i5 that motion tu re��
15AIV ll Hearings and Adjudications consiticr he �r���cle bv or�e 4vlio votc�l wifll ���i<ijoriry ��n
15A1<480 Rehearing �noti�ii tu �e raculisiaerecl.
15Ak482 k. Power and discretion to
order rehearing. Mcst �ited Cases f� �onstitutional I.aw 92 �4096
Administratave Law and Procedure fl5A C�489.fl 92 Constitutional Law
92XXVIi Due Process
15A Administrative Law and Frocedure 92XYVII(G} Particular Issues at�d Ei�plica-
15AIV Powers and Proceedings of Administrative tions
Agencies, O�cers and Agents 92XXVII(G)3 Property in General
15AIV D Hearings and Adjudications 92k4091 Zoning and Land Use
15Ak489 Decision 92k4096 k. Yroceedings and review.
15A1<489.1 k. In general. Most Cited Most Cited Cases
Cases (Formerly 92k278.2(2))
�arfli�men��ry d_:�.wr ��6 «5 Zoe�ing and P!araaa�r�g 4��1 °�1�53
?86 Parliamen±ary La�v 414 Zoning and Planning
285k5 k. Crde:, rnode, and fcr.ns ef proceedir.gs. 414IX Variances and Exceptions
VIost Cited Cases 414iX'� Proc�edings fur Variances aiid Ex-
ceptions
Basic i of naa:l�azn�;i�iar:- ?�::v i; _hat uizlAss �+��kl'a5.3 k. r{e'iea�i;7g cr r°co.isi::e_atioi_.
SOi 1� I'ig}lt Of t11II� �"i�iCCYi Iiltt-I r11 (j�,�1�.�Idf:VE' �`TCSt CiCP,� raSE;
b���ies liavs right t� rec�nsi<<e�° �'nei� pr��:;el�iing� (Form�rlv 414k547j
daring their session, as o�Fn as tt�e;� think ��rn��er,
W}l�ri T�C9 OI�1'?`�-JI�C 7�I'OE'1GE��t )� ,%:\4, o,.i�� _� .S t31�,i) t�1C: Of DOcTL 7f CO:lltiy C:�`.Y2a:1 S�SJ:?�?'S 'rTi rc',i?
I'��Sil�t OTIl�/ WiI1Ci1 1S r(? be ie�1i'C�E� ?aS ti?f tlli:'1` (1nilL. pEYllr� pLihI1C' �I2at2P.g, 3I1� C:PriVlia �57'Oj'?�IfiV O'v;;71Ei';
v�riance, �vP tri.n�tes �f��r app�•evir€ v:�:ianc�, �i�
j� �6�r��a�sfa°a���. � l,. �v �b:�_ �'�•=�4.e•�-x� e=q�, not depri��e o�met� �i� proceK�:ra? dt�e ,:,rocess, t,�l
,��^, ��� board memt�er �✓ho rna�� vct as er:or �ictifie:� c,w:ie:';
counsel irrunediately that 1 intended to saeic recon-
sideration of vaiiaace, �our:l �ave cwr.er's c�u:�sel
15A Qdmini�trative Lav� an� Procedure '
ample opporiunity after hearing was reopetied to be
15AIV Powers an�i P.oceedings �i Ac:rrii.�isi�aiive
hPard a.id voice his �bjec;tic;rs, arsci hoard stricfly
Agenciec, Officers anr; �Q�n':s .
cotn�lieu� wiili �roce�iure� i�i zc:.�,�� urZinance.
iS�iIV D Hearings aiid Adjuuic�iioils
15Ak480 Rehea:ing U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; Sarasota County Fla.,
Ordinance 79-03.
rJ 20?3 Thcroson �?eute.s. I�TO Claim to Orig. US Go�. �,�Ior�cs.
TAB 3
EX PARTE COMMUNICATI�NS
Statutes & Constitution : View Statutes : Oc�line Sunshine htlp://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfin?App_mode=Display Stat...
Select Year: 2012 Go
'I'Y�e 2oi� Flori�a Statutes
Title XIX Chapter 286 View Entire Chapter
PUBLIC BUSIN�SS PUBLIC BUSINESS: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
28b.0115 Access �o local puplic officials; quasi-judicial proceedings on to�al gov�rnment land
use matters.—
(1)(�) A cotanty or municipality may adopt an ordinance or resolution removing the presumption of
prejudice from ex parte communications with local public officials by establishing a process to disclose ex
parte communications with such officials pursuant to this subsection or by adopting an alternative
process for such disdosure. However, this subsection does not require a county or municipality to adopt
any ordinance or resolution establishing a disclosure process.
(b) As used in "this subsection, the term "lc��__� ;��.af�li ;i�i�it;i�-�" r��ea��,�..ji�y eiected or a,���r>ii��i�-�tl ����i�lfc
t�iii�.:tclk hO�C�lfl� d COU�Iiy Gr ITlUiIiCT�d� OffiC� Svil�.? � ,i�;ii �F�I1!i�, )t �,il<t�5 i�118>i )�iEfi!_i _� ;;:-iit�l�t �1`, t� �71E�i�1�7�1"
�,,�c;;�� {� ,:., :��l�i:�i:. ,i��n. l�he term does not include a member of the board or commission of any state
agency or authority. �
��
{t J ,�,i� f,r`i �iJi 1it� ��Ib�i i,i' ��V �''li� �i_ C i,� .-�.i, �ii i;-'i ��i �t�i lf;il, �?I +�si:li�l�tla; i� ti�i t; ��I;�'1;55 �n/9�
�t �, � ;' � ' ?`�(i�l � �l �,:° � i ;i��, !;i dliy 117<]rt.: �[1 W�11C�1 �ir rlt:�p lils�y bE' Ldktfl �ly 111� hO�ll"C� OC
��mmission on wh�ch tne iocat pubti� official i� a member. It �dopted by �ounty or m�in�cii�:,i �����:�i�n�nce
Of� f CSJ�ULlU(l, a���s'i��-'li �' ��li i.ti� ii�(;�;���lil� �1�!)l"C'_ UI��eS Sld (��''iil(;�i�? C 1�) �>I�E"�411t?�7tlt)li '1f ��t��)llt �;_;' �t1S1C1P
frnn� :�;� part� r�omrT�unications witf7 l��ca! pul�lir r,ffi�.i:�is
�. TIIP SIir�SL,�IICE t�fi �Ily �=x ���ii� Ci)i}1ff11111t�aTinn v✓1Cri d iOCd� �lIh�1C caffjt t;;( wi�ir-}1 fF?(ntPS i_C� CiEi���l-
�U(�iC17� ,lt_'l�1011 �?+°,flC�irl6 f1°!'OYP t�l° 11filCl�� t5 Il!?i ��f r':;fl(li. ;-� `;� E•]U(�1�::1%il f_O i{�E' 3C��.1_)!i ii C�lE3 �iJ��JECi �Ji tr12
comr��i_�ni��;iL�r� a;��7 �h� ��es��iiy c�t tlle peisu��, ,ruup, ��� e�ti�i�y w�tl� �vvf7�s�� t_h�=;��rr�mi_ni�c,�iif�n to��k �lace
jJ t�1��.�:it::� �lll {!il�l(.�E� i; II�I C. V(� �.fl� I CGf�� �tc j�>i;.' Tlll_3� r7t,_[10!1 i}ji, ��1C=' f11d�fF';.
�. 1� iO4di �iU'i)`liC C}{p1Cit`1.( �il'u'V �ead a wriiten CO(f1fflUil'ICr�tl9ri pi"CilTl clli�/ ?FfSGiI. I�(3WrV�i � Vv'I"li.t2i�
(�011lifilit"i1Ca�li)il filot � CIdtES t0 t�i1�Si-JliClCld� dC�'fGil �Jelli�irl�! �eft)te d�UCc�� ��UL)t7C, Ol'1'li;id't �hd<< i1ClC ij2
pres�asneci p� eiu:i9cial �c the ac� ;or:, a��d such wr;tten camrr��,r;icotio� s"r;ai! be rr3a:i�-� a�=crt c�i r.he reccrd
befare `;i;�t uc�;oi� on �he ,���ter.
� �.f?f �{ �ilif?'ir ,'�ft��',a(S rY��V ('�il(�tlrt inVn•;t7?1Y1�C?", �111ri 'i1"' `.'iSii ; ,�irC ITI��,� i'�:"E 1J<' �;Yj�t.l"f 0(�ln'Oi!S
!'F�,�,�ti�i't1'��% i-�i1,=lS1 �l!:ilCl �� -i" �t�.j�i i )::'I+L;I;�� U�IUtE LrE.'I71. Jl.iLt"1 dLL1Vlf`TF''> ri�::�� iiCiL �it- ritE'�liiT�eC� �;� 3uc7icial to
lfle r,li�L1011 II C��2 c.'>CiSI.Ci?i.e Jl �IYd {i��...:L�ccl!!+}�i ,��r' `.�j�,j� �i ;�:(jii=�L U���1G11 .� iEi3.`�t' '� �;�:it� tf �i,2 .':'C'JI�
h2tQt� I?il�l d���ijp!i r!ll C��lr�� iil�-itY�l'.
4. Ci�cl�>tire rr���1�;;i�rs�i-�rt ro siab��ra�raphs 1_, 2., and 3. must b� mad� hefrrF nr �lu�in� the �tiblie
I71E'Pl7IlP c�t "N�llCfi d'vpt't? i•; i_���i ��i� �,lit it I��ir_3tit�l�5, ;C) Yflctl_ �)E�f��t)r15 Wf10 iltiVe OF)]Illi)IlS tOfl�i�l!�J i�U t�l(�ti�
E'X��fF'iSF't.� lil 1.�1� �; U<_tl ..: �!Jl!lfl!!11!!!.cii.liill r�I� ..?lv'-'il �l I���i1011rl�l�i'� t�l.ili0i(!liiil,J ��C? � 01� 1t [f) I�"1.E'
ce:T��iiur,ica��u�i. This subsection daes nat subject local public officials to part II! of chapter 112 for not
complying with this paragr�ph.
(2)(aj Notwithstanciing the provisions of subsection (1 j, a county or municipality may adopt an
ordir.ance c�r resolution estaclishing the procedures and previsicrs of tnis subsection for quasi-judicial
1 oi 7. 5;2/2�13 2:27 P�V?
Statutes 8i Constitution : Vew Statutes : Oniine Sunshine http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfin?App_mode=Display_Stat...
proceedings on local government land use matters. The ordinance or resolution shall provide procedures
and provisions identical to this subsection. However, this subsection does not require a county or
municipality to adopt such an ordinance or resolution.
(b) In a quasi-judicial proceeding on local government land use matters, a person who appears before
the decisionmaking body who is not a party or party-intervenor shall he allowed to testify before the
decisionmaking body, subject to control by the decisionmaking body, and may be requested to respond to
questions from the decisionmaking body, but need not be sworn as a �vitness, is not required to be subject
to cross-examination, and is not required to be qualified as an expert witness. The decisionmaking body
shall assign weight and credibility to such testimony as it deems appropriate. A party or party-intervenor
in a quasi-judicial proceeding on local government land use matters, upon request by another party or
Farty-interveno�, shall be sworn as a witness, shall be subject to cross-examination by other parties or
party-intervenors, and shall be required to be qualified as an expert witness, as appropriate.
(c) In a quasi-judicial proceeding on local government land use matters, a person may not be
precluded from communicating directly with a member of the decisionmaking body by application of ex
parte communication prohibitions. Disclosure of such communications by a member of the decisionmaking
body is not required, and such nondisclosure shall not be �resumed prejudicial to the decision ef the
decisionmaking body. All decisions of the decisionmaking body in a quasi-judicial proceeding on local
gavernment land use matters must be supported by substantial, competent evidence in the record
pertinent to the proceeding, irrespective of such communications.
(3) This section does not restrict the authority of any board or commission to estabtish rules or
procedures governing public hearings or contacts with local public officials.
History.—s. 1, ch. 95-352; s. 31, ch. 96-324-
i
I Copyright O 1995-2013 The �to� ida Legislature • Privacy Staterrent 6 Contact Us
2 of 2 5/2/2013 2:27 PM
� RESOLUTIQN NO. �g � g�/�S
A Ft.ESOLU'7`IOI� C?�' '�HE V'�LL�G� COT,�NCIL OF `.�HE
VI�t�,I.,AGE aF TEQU�STA, PALM BEACH Ct?UPtTY,
FLORIDA, AUTHORIZI1dG EX-PARTE COI�IMtJNICATZ�AIS
IId QUASI-JUDSCZAL MATTERS RELATING TO THE
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA COUNCIL, IT5 C�MMISSIOPiS
AND BOARDS, PUR.SUANT TO HOUSE BILL 5 A'�.'ACHED
HERETO; P1tOVIDING FOR DISGLOSURE REQUIREMENTSr
PROVTDTNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Florida legislature, pursuant ta House 83.11 5,
copy attached hereto, has authorized ex-parte coinm�:nicatians in
quasi-jud�.cial matte�s pu�suan� to certain disclosure requirements
contained herein; and
WHEREAS, the Village Council of the V�.11.age of Tequesta wishes
to adopt the disclosure requa,r�zn�nts :.o;�tained wit�.in Hous� Bill 5
in order tc take �dvantage of the �iba.J.i�y a� �the Villag� Ca�ncil,
� �.ts co�n.missioz�s anr� boards, being allo`aec� to engag� a.r� ex-parte
GpA1Tl3tt17,1 C3�.7.011.
�c�w THFa1�EF�RE sE ��r RESOLVED B�' TH� V��,►��E �acrrrc�� o� �H�
£J,�:�I��� 4F' �'�{�iTESTA, P� �NI B�a�H �t�Ul�t�''k' o r�•Q��F3.A:, as i�l lcae�� a
�� t'on 1, T�.e Vi1X�ge h���b�r �e���t� t�e p�ova.sicrn� of
�Io�x�� �3�.1�. 5, t��rehy a11ti�;in� ��°p���� ���uni�ata.or�� in r��ard to
qu���.�-�ud.��ial m�.tters �.nc� so �� �o �ro��.de tha� ��i�
cc�ne�a�n�.eatians sh�ll not be pz-e��ar�ec� �?re��d�.��a3.o
S�cz'on 2. The �illag� h�r�b�r a�a�t� the fc�llaw��.rt�
disti���vre re�airements:
A. Iz� th� event o¢ any ex��arte caann:un.�e��ion
with � local publ.i� cffici�.l wh.i�h �elates t�
quas�.-juclicial acti.@n pe��i.raq b�f�r� t�±e
offa.c�.a1., it shall be the r�spor�s�.k?i,lity af
� suah public official ta disclose the subject
of the communication and the identity of the
persan, graup or entity with wham the
aammuraa.�atior� toc�k place and said �nformatian
shall be made a part of the record befare
�inal action an the matter.
B. A laca7. publi� official may read a w�itten
communication fram any persan, hawever, any
written �ommun�.catian tY�a� relates to a quasi-
jxtdica.al actian gen3in� befcsre a lr�cal publ.ia
afficiaJ. shall be made p�rt c�� the xecord
before �inal a�tion on th� �ria��.er.
C. Local public bff�.G1�1.S may conduct
investiqatians and sfte visits and may receive
expe�� oginians regarding quasi-judicial
a.c��.on p�n3iz�g b�fare the�t, ho��rever, th�
ea�ist�nce o� �he ix�vestigatiar�, �i�� vi�i�, o�
�xg�:r�� a�i.nicn sh�,11 l�e made a par� a� �he
re��r--�� ��fc�r� f i�ral aetion an �I�� �na���r e
�. �isc�.��u�� :��4� p�r�u�nt tcs parag.� «�hs �, B
��� � m��?� be �ad� be�a�e or d�.�rinc� th� ���s�.�.�.
�ee,��.ra� at rahich a vote is tak�r� �n such
�����:�s, �� �tha.�t persc�n� c�hc� h��� e�ini�n�
con��ary ta th�se expres�ed in �he ��c-par�e
cr�mmun�catiart a�e given a r�a��nable
2
oppor�un��y to r��u�� a� r��p�nd �o ���
com�nunicati�n.
S,�„c�ian 3. T�is Res�lutaon �h�ll a�e�oz�e e���cta.ve
in�edi����.y �.pon �aass�ge.
'Iy�T� F�REGQING RESCILUTIflx7 *aa� c�ff��ed by �s�unci3.z�e�b�:�
t�Vi 1I iarn �. �3urc:cart ,<<�ho anov�d its �d€�pti�an:. '�he R��4lution
t�ras s�cande�d �ay C�ur,c�.l��inber Elizab°t,'n .l. Sci�au�;r ��zd ezpe�n
bea.ng pu� �,ca � vo��:, th� vo�e ���as a� f�ll�a�s,
�'OR AI�UPTIQa�t �GhZNST r���?�'I'�C?�,�
Carl Iia•ns�n
R.9n T. ��i�.ckail
���:illiam �. $i�rcj{axt
Elizabeth �. a
� T�.� ��a�c�� �n6s�upr�r� de�l�.:��� ��e �c��n�.��u? ��a dul;{ �a��ed a�d
���{r�:�d �h1.5 2?i.h c�3� C3i Jii�� � 29Q�.
�.�iY'��2 ��� 1 EQ�JES`�1�
� +�
��� � d�d ��.���'
�car. '� q �ta���dl �` ._._�.,
��I'TES�' s
� v���'�. �,,,., �<g' v..�-' 1 ��•->i _-�--
i; �. J.age Clq�:: �
��'{:F`L \ 1313 3^.f`a I t,�-';.+.SQLU 1 Z a E.=.E'
3
�t�oL�n �rtctr.eo
t995 t��lwlwturs CS/t� 6� 2sd Ba�rasxad t9l5 ��g�aetatax�
x x s. xt eb�c.,� ay te. c.�q#ax.tura ot
2 An �at t�lsttn� ta acce�ia ta loe+�l pnb.lir x
3 cftiaiwls; czralind a. 1�tl6.Q115� F.B. j 3 Section� 1. &�cR�os 2l�6.0113
4 tutbaritrle�q eaastiws w►d �u�riat�►lit#ss to i crwa�i to k�ad�
� rdopt wrb#n ordfnaacwr er ssa�axutivas ral#tad S 2�6.Ot45 dac�as to lea�.i pu
d to uc•y+irtw ae�nwn3a�tioe�e �eitk p�t►14a i i1y ��Oi110R2TY.--A caae�Cy oe
7 ottlrc��lar; ptevldias x A�tla�tOioni peavid3ng 7 ordinaner or r�olutlaw r�aravlue� ti
A far aavrsa to pnh],ia oil.�cti�lt�; aathos#�ioy m ira� �x-pwrts aainwrttaatlaoa with I
q iuv�al3qaiioner sad rwad�C s! ieterw�#fawy i�r�+b13aAAnr� a proc�rss to ai�alns�
U s�l�e fu� dimlaare� st �oe �r�to eo�w:cativn j - 19 �ti#b s�+,snb o[tia�lae �ur�rv�nt to !ki
I1 aulherisie� laaat. eules at pcoc�dwe�aitf � 11 rli�raat.ivr @roc+�s� tvs arch d�sc�o
12 ���+iatp� �n �ttw�i�v� dst�. 11� sraliaN do�r ea! srqu#r+ • aouaiy a
� 7;3 ordisrae� a�t ewia2uRioa Msta�li�bie
1� Mi�A�, �o'r�rna�nt ia �lncid� i,R aonducfird is tb� Ik t2� 11�'ZNI7tON.--A� etsw3 it�
15 �oatu�iat puxsuaat ta o6�g#nr 9Jti� FYcr�ids Sta�rl4s, s�ad k� "2mcar.� puhllc a�tie�sl° we�aa aay �
Ib N1�+.Abt. tl�s pubtic ehm+1A M abl� to va3c� itr li alt�,ciwl boldiag • aaaerty or wna9.ci
17 opia�ao: to �ooa� wk�alwd publtie o!liei��s, �ad 17 or taltrar c(wai-�udiais.l +eat3.aa aa r
1D �lqBA�s w2�ct�d sad pvbl�ic edficir2a ar� prarwnm! to • -�a e�a�wissian. !bw l�tn da�iar ook ate�at
l9 psrlar� tMr'ls d�utJra in a lsvfal a►d prope �nrrr, �od 19 ar coaw�i�w.iva af sn�r atwC� �g�wzy o
2• M�tB� �as3-j�diCial dsaiar.lana+�kin� wosk lee bward aa 29 Eal �4C�B8 �kY]SI27�71.--itttY
21 ca�np�t�et, aubst+Matia� wid�ao� of r«cosd, ��sd 21 prohibitad DY �lwtul., ab�ar�e prov
y2 N�F�tt488p 1aes1 sA�etsd put�l3a aliledala hav b�en 2� di,�cnss witd any loosl pna6�Aic aiYia
�3 abst�racY�# ar ia�►w9rd tro�a ths tw3r setd �flscta�ve •disr..Rrxge eX 23 surtl�s on w6ieb act3as �aay b� ts�a
24 tke�r sw�o�e 6utis� �md r�sp�ru�L!fYlti�►s dv+s tn rxp�nsiuw 24 a+s xbfcb tfi�w �ou�l publ3a atffaiw�
25 jnt�cpr•taEiar,a o� Js���t�gs v. fk�da �ounty f n dicisian 2� anaaty or wa3aipsl ord3e�or� at e�
2G rrnder�►d �y �Ms '6i3xd tlirtsi�t Court 6f APR�s.t. And . 25 ia±Aaving Ps'ac�dac�s sdsi2 r�owi 4
�7 ptl�ft�l:, �eatis�d S� 6ar#3c.Ys I af tb� Btst+R Ca�stEtnticlm 3F ae3+��f tron es-part�r svr�r�uoic:#.i�sn
2s giww bhs gbv�le t�e r�grlxt pfaar�wbl�+ t�s rusarPwle, #o ir,s�c�xi! 2E afifi�ials.
2� ��ii�{E F'�¢�4iiRti��.TiM;; ERii' �O $����i �QY' t�L'�SR�d �� �� ei� �9� t'1�1'F�i4(tC! O:� iD'r �%'
EO gcistrsna�s, t4Qii. '�'ll�ftf�a �0 �aci� puFb13� o�%i�!#.wl xhfch �al�,t�r�
3 � ;� ��€it� �rafare i:ier� a!'Piei�rl i: �n�
9 �
COOAi�:� �s-�s xir€ak+s� �r� �lstivxss: ieards ��5f sre e�A{lann. tUtDl?iG: kords �trinN�n +�ra dw1��3ons� c
, � �
�
�.e��ase.tn �+eo€�.�e►
19'f5 Lagiaffiattu'w CSlN9 3� Tr�d �nqrorsid 7995 Lasiflatur� C�/KS S, �nd fiogroaaed
1 actiou i8' tirs a�uD,�wot +�C tis aa�unawia�t3na a�ad tfrA ild:o.ity a! 1 8+otlaa �. T#3s wot al�lx laks sttsct upon b4ccai4g s
2 t�s p�rsvin, grar�C, as antft� a�it,�a khvar ths coa�u�3oi�iod 1tAOk 2 lsx.
; pizc� 3s d3aolee�d #�cd t�i+� a part at RAe s�rca�+d tKtori tia��l 3
4 a�etiaa o�t RAs �ttsr. �
5 tb) A� 1oaa� p�►lic �!'t�aial. ebpr x��ud aa xr�ttsm S
b s�a�wu�aiaw7t�ca� iCsow aa� p�xw�a. !lawau�ar� �+er3l#�t+*n 6
T c��ruaicaticns tllibt sal��'as �s qtw,i~japdiao,f.al aiati�� �»adfity T
�&stara w 2a�naY p+�=�o dEti�.all �rrld, n�o�t bs pa+�uw.� � .
�,ysejndiciwl: to R1� watieo aad aw:h aEar�L�k�w r•wMra�ai@rR£a�n aA�all '
10 M ard. w prr� a�t 81+� ucsaa�d 1lstac� £ieaa�� �ii�ra s��e �th,� 3!
11 waLtsr. 1 �
�2 l�ol E.xwA �n►Y�tfb a��3�aiw£� wcy c;aad�aat. 3s�r+R��gatfaas 12
I3 aad :ila v"sarit.�r �Ad �ay t+�ssiv� �nq►�rt aq�aioxc� Ya�ardias8 ��
14 qussi-j+�iaial ua�l�n �a83n* Dw�fl'oaew #.kws�.. Suala weEiiv�ties 14
15 s1+al I aot Ras prssrewe� pra ju�ic3��� t� 1:hr aa7t-i�n� 3T �+0 3!S
I6 �7i.�4;�RCS m8 tlee 3sFVaal3grl�aae s�t� w3sit� a� �g���k s�pinioeti 36
17' is w�de a p�rt rif R�ee t�aard �nelC�re !$stag s�t$caa e�. gh• ��
2a �Ltsr. i �
19 tdD lt3aoloa�+ts �►Q,� �uascsne! �a pwc�s+rpt�s t+�), tbD R9
20 �e� (c) eavs� b� �o�dw a�iaoes ot dW'ia$ tAs pa+��3t� ss��l.�ng �! 21t
21 xh3ch � voRs ia @aksa an awah a�atlara�, 3u� id►at /esaous aeieo 2�
22 bave apiaina�e canieary �a t�uss ax�eaiaaw�l �a► tlro sar�patbr 22
23 aoeowniaat3ma �r� �rive�e a rrauowt62s cp�oort�€o�Cy �� s��u@e vr 2�
2'R resyon.8 tss Lh� aw�w�enr$ew�fa�a. '!"!�#w �a#iaw daas te�t s�aRt�sot 2�4
23 local yishlia vii7Ea3��ka !a ywrR IIa at aErap��a�r 9'f2 �a�r aat 2ffi
26 ca�pdying eai��i t�a�rt sixbasck3oar. ��
27 �4) A6?L�;.--Tfiis s�at#ara dr�sar ata! [w�'icS t!1e 27
28 s�zhar5it� oi wny 2noarA +o;: �o�w�#ss.i�� Ro �aetsb�.�sta aw2wa� or 2�
29 pra+asdut+ea Sovssni�t� pni�l4a: fimttxixt$s c��r c�ratact�e +e$th local 29
30 pt��+lfc o�[ff�c3xla. I•
31 ��
� �
C4�AIMC: Kor�ts strf2k�t� srw riit��.�tAoRr�F �e'das y�:�'1�, ssa ad4i}lasas. CODElIC: Kords a�lrickin se-e dslsiios�; ttarda aa�dtrclir�d sre sddltians.
. Vi.11age of Tequesta
} ' S�: `;�= ' `�
,
� ° MA'� 2 3 1995
�
Vi11a e Mana er's Office
.� .�ouse o�' �epr~ese.rltatives
TC7M WARtiER
Mdy 19 � 1995 RFPRFSk�7�1Ti�E. DISIRIC T$
Tom Bradford, 'Villaqe Mar►aqer
Village af Tequesta
Post �fffce Box 3273
Tequesta, FL 33464-Q273
Dear Tom:
On May 1, 1995, the Florida Legislature unanimous],y passed CS�HB 5,
which relates to local access ta public of£�ici.alse The bxll came about
clue tn num�raus camplaints by private citizens and local gaveacnments
regardiaaq re�tricted access to public cfficials, pazticularly relating
ta local p�.anning an�. zoning assues. This bill authorizes lncal
gove�t�nents ta estalalish a disclosure pro,es� rerno�ang the pr�sumpti4n
�f. p�ejudic� frnm ex parte con�munica�tians �►i�h appointed or elect�d
public officials related ta quasi-judi.cial pending naatters. Lacal
govern�mer►�s are not requir�c3 tc� �dog� �a�y disclds�re prc�c���, but a
�o��l grccess which m�� be adapt�d �.� est�blishe� i.n th� bill.
��he disciQSUre process esta�al.ished by the bi11 declares that tre
sub�tanc� of any ex parte communicatian i� not presu�ed prejud�.cial to
the actiora i� the sula�ect ef the �omm�nicat�.�n �.nd identity of th.e
����c�r�, g�cu�a, ar entity witl� whom t�i� �cm�ur�ication �oak glace is
dis�l��ed by the locai Off�.cial. Such 3iscla�ure shall be xaade a par�
a£ �h� �e�ard before o�r d�r�nq �Gh� ���lic m�e�i�g at �ahict� ��ro�� i� z�
�� ��ken o�► the matt�r. Ar�ycan� hava.nc ��� n3s�ns c€�r�trar�r to *hcas�
�x�d����d ir� the �x part� �o�mur��.�.a�.y��� w�l� b� given a x�easo�a�ble
c��p�r�u�i.t��r �c� r�fute r�r �°e�p:anc� t� �:h� ce�mur�ic�tic�ns. T�:e ba.11
�I�ri�.��� t�:�t n�na�mpli.��ce �f�� e� ����e d�.��l��u� pres��dure� do��
ra�� �u�je�� ����1 p�b�,i� o��ici�sl� �c� gi�� G��� �f �ttai�ao
�`�a ��»�,�t yo� �r, retrie�rin� �he ��::�i�4e��� �f ��i�� l��i�l�ti�� � am
�r��:�.a�aa�g ��opy �f �he st�ff an�.ay��.� �f t�a� k�%31. �a �o�y of ��i� bill
�� p�z°e��;�terl to �he Grsve��Q� �ili k�� s���t �c� ��u d�,reetc].y froan
'�a�.I�l������ . Fl�a�e gi�e us a^,a11 if w� can �e o� f��th�r as��.sta�c� a
Sin�e�e�,y, �
� ��'�.�
Tr�m Wa,gn�r
��ate �?e�r��ent�t�,ve
enctosures
y'S7J��t�t�r �c�erttlf��q�w�ty CC��iLt117TEES �lz' �c� C.�tP�tei
..4tu.:rr, F� 3daea �. • 1fd'ce.i:ti• �l'e,r/�r:.�neny � �amil jaw. �.�lrarr �a/�husxee, F� �tB.i3%� 7=c'�.'
��;•�i•�,Sr1Xt> .�aturu�Res�urce., • CIt, �'ti•;,s�t' 7c�ece�rrmunrcatrvna• • C.j'triria �'u4°ic3�i ��Y3!'
� STORAG� NAME: t�Q05s1 a.ee
DATE; MatCh 9, i 995
HOUSE OF REpRESENTA"CIY�S
COMMiTT�E ON
ETHIGS AND ELEC7'IONS
� BII.L ANALYSIS � ECQNOMIC IMPACT S7AT'EMEN'�
BILL �: CSMB U0�5
R�LA7ING TO: Access to Local Public Officials (Quasi,Judiciai Proceeding�)
SPQNSOR(S}: Cammittee on Eihics and Electians; Rep. Constarnin�; Rep. M+nton and othe�s
STATtJTE(S) AF�EGTEt3: creates s. 286.0115, F.S.
COMPANIC?N BtLL.(S): SB 438
ORIGlNAT1NG G�MMITTEE(S)/�t7MMIT'1�E(S) 0� R�FERENCE:
(1} EfHICS AND ELECTIt)N5 Y�A g NAY Q
��)
(3)
(4)
�`�)
i. suMn�aY: '
This bill a�rthorizes ex parte cammunic�tion with lacai public officials and declares that such communicaEion
shali r�ot be presumed prejudicial to pending quasi-judicia! matters 'rf disclasure af such communication is
made priar to o� during the p�btic roseting at which a vote is taken on such matte�. 7he k�ill provides that
th4se halclir�g ap��ions c�trary to thos� expressed in the ex pa►te ccxnmunicatian are to be affc�rded a
reasorfab� apportunity to refute or respond io such cammunicai�on.
'1'�e �iiE does nac h�ve ��igr��cant €'�scat irn�act upen state or tQCal gave�nt.
�
STRI�DA�R� FO�tM 11/90
� STORAGE NAME: h0005s1a.ee
DAl'L,: Maroh 9, 1 �JS
PAG� 2
li. SUBSTANTIV� ANALYSIS:
� A RRESEM' SfTlJAT1QN:
Cour�ty and rrtunicipal goveming bodies are administrative bodies which perform mostly legis{ative acts
(e.g., adapting annual budgets and miliage rates, and adapting ordir�anc�s dealing with a variery c�
se�t�jects relating ta pubiic healih, safety, and w�{fare.) Hawsve�, these baciies aEso perform ceRain acts
which are classified as quasE-judiciai. BIACK'S LAW DICTiONARY defines quasi-judicial as toilows:
Q�asi-judiciat is �(a) term appiied ta actian, �iscretion, etc.. af pubii� administrative cNficers or bodies
whn are required to irive�t�ate facts or ascertain the exi�ence c� faas, hoid hearir�gs, weigh evidence,
and draw conclusions fram them, as a basis fnr thei► offici�l aciian. and ta exercise discretion of a
judiciat n�ure.'
The pr� cc�ntroversy invoives tt� abiEiry of iocaE public afficial.s Lo cc�municate with their
ca�stitusr�ts, particulariy when they receive what may be descr�bed as ex parte canmunicatinns a�
pendirtg quasi-judiciai ma�ters coming befare a baard o� commissicn of which ar� offiaal is a member.
6tACK'S LAW DICTt4NARY defines ex parte �'one side aniy; by or for ane party; done far, in be#�a�
af� ar an tt� appticaiion c�, �a party c�nly.' Additiona(iy, a usefui descriptian r� the meaning of ex parte
communicatior►s in the cc�texi af administrative prraceedings may be fou�i in the fede�ai Adrninistrati�r�
Procedure Act, 5 U.S,C. s. 551(i4), which provides ir� �rtin�t part that an ex parie communieatio� is '
an waE ot written cammunicatian r� or� the pubiic r�card with respect to wfiich reasartabie prior rwtice
to atl {�a�ties � rxx given....`
Twa r�ceM court cases rela�ed ta ex parte commun�catiar�s have placed new restrictions on county and
rt�un�cip�l governing Exxiy membeca in th� condud c� quasi-judic'sa0 �raceedongs and have brought
certain rezonin� psaceesiings forme� and t�aclicional�y deen�d to be tegisladve into the r,,e�asi-jus�tci�l
catec�nr�+-
In Jenninq,s v. Dade Cournv, 589 So2d 1�i7 (Fla 3rd DCA 1�1}, rev. deni�d, 598 So.2d 75 {FIa.
��� 2tie Ftorida Suprer�: Gourt ex��ni€�� ex��rte c�m�unication anc! held that �no��r� a��s;=
jud�ial hea�ings are no4 con#ral�ed by strict ��es � evidenc� and proc�ure, they mu-st provid� ce�ai�
minienum s�arulacds of d� proce.ss.
tn Jenni �, the Thidd District G€�uR of Appea! r�vviewed prior case taw regardin� the due prxess e�c�
a# an ex parte communication u�on a quasi-judict�l prQCeeding. The Court fvcusecf on the na�ture afi
ex parte communicatiari and whether it vv�s r�aEeriai ta the pairrt that rt pre�e�dice�i the ccrri�lain�nc� �arEy
and resutted in a� denia! at pr�vet:ural tlue prt�C�ss. I� �ler�r�tt��s. the Co�€rt creat€sc! a�sbutt�b�e
pr�surnpttan �f �r�ju��ce. T��� ts, or�.^.t� pr��udici�6 ex parte communi�a�it�n �ecting � qu�si-jut3i�i�i
hearinq i�a� b�ro atl��d, s�+eh �rejci�i�e ��r�►surned. The �urden 4he� sMifts to th� �e5�on��nt tc�
rebut tt� presurnptian #t3az the ct�is�a �t wa� prej�,dtc�ct
In �c,�ard af Goc��t�+ Cam�rr�i�.sianers af r�rard �n, �. � nder, 62T So.2d a�9 {�la. 1���, �he �'loric�a
a��er►re Ccurt b�aug�t ��t�ir t��p� of zt�rtg i��e� uexiee €he eaYegory o� qu�i jud'rci�i ac:i�s �a��
#herefore, su�� tca the #indin� ir J��r�� s r2iated to ex pa�rt� cor�m�anicatian r�ce�ire� by oftic�at� e,n
�uc� matt�r�. t� �,�,�,,,,r�,,,dec tt�� �c�r� �ets.� tha� °�ez�irs� a�� w�i�.h ental�s ��}�lEC�ti�� �f g�r�eral ruE�
or �tiGy io �pecifi� in�i�i+�uals. i���� �r ��tiv�ies �s qua�i�jvdicial in nature, su�jec� �t� s�ri�t �r�ti�r
�n �eati�a�ri revi�wv' an� tt� `Att�io�;gh t�j k��d iS �i01 P�{UiP� t0 Pit�ICB �I'iC�4�1C�$ � g� iEi G��ilj�i�t�
(artJ applic�tian �f re�or��r�g. upo€� r�view t��r c�rtis�r�ri in Yhe circ�it couct it mu�£ be sl�iowrs ther� w�
comp�t�t substarrtia! eui�e�c� pr���ed to [t�� b€�ard to suppore its fnd iCi�.�
As � car�s�quence c,f JenrRinr,s anc� �vnc�er, mar�r i�cai p�btic affie;ia� have �ome t� beiieve t�a� thay
are not at�le to cam�turic��t� ir ce�ttai� lc�siar�es wrth the constituents that they wpr� et�cte� tv
represent, and, as a eo?i�quen�e are expariert��n� di�icuitie5 in 4h� pertormance o# thei� official
tiuti�3s artd respassibilities.
STANDARC3 FO�fUI � 1/9{l
STORAGE NAM�: h0005sta.es
DATE: March �, 1995
` PAGE �
B. EF�ECT UF PROPOSEO CHANG�S:
� This biN overturns the presumption oi preJudice that was establlsh�i by the Jennings case. It
permits discussions on subsiantive issues beriveen locai public c�fficials and members of the public,
including ex parte cammunicatian an pending quas�-judiciat matters. The bill dectares that such
discussions m�y r�ot !ae presurr�d prejudicia! to the acti�n tatc� by a board or commissian M ,
disciosure of the substance � such camrnunication is made prior ta a vc�e being taken an the matter.
The bili wdt allow �acai publtc oFEicia#s to speak with their constituents and read thejr maii cvnsutt with
experts, aind conduct investigations and sfte visits an pending quasi-judiciat matters. The bilf requires
disclasure af such communicatfans prtar to cu durtng the pub�c meeti�g where a vote is to be taken
ora such matters. Fu�her, it requires that those holdirig r►p�stng vEews f�e aftwdec! a reasanabfe
oppatunity to reFute ti� substance of such ez p�ie ccxnmunications.
I.ocai �fic officiafs are nat restricted from establishirtg �e restriciiv� rules govemin� public
meetir�s ar the c:cm#act c� lor,�l pubfic officials.
C. SECTtC)N-BY-SECTION ANAt»YSIS:
Sectia� 1. Creates s. 286.0145, F.S.; defines �lacat pubiic of�cia!' to rnean any etected or appntnted
counry or mun�ipal c�'fic�ai who recommends ar takes quasi-judic�al action; permits c3iscussions with
tocai public ofticiats relative ta the merits of an issue; declares thad ex p�te cammu�ticatitms shatl nat
be presurt�ed prejud'rciat A disclased; pravides circurnstar� under �+hich the substar�c� pf ex parie
r.�mma�ni�atiorrs wi�h tocat put�tic afficiaR$ relating to pe�ding quasi-judic�al a�ti� are sieeme� pubrc
information; pravides Circumstances ur�der which writEen cammunicatian relating ta pending quasi-
�di�ial acc3on is ci�e�,ed public ir�formati�n; authorizes air�u�nstaE� urtder wh�h IocaE public officials
r�y rece�ve axp�rt opinio� arzd cor�iuct ir�vvestigations ar�d s�#� vi�its ret�tiv� �o �ltrrg quasi-yudicial
ac�ions; requires toc�l public afficia�s to d'�scloSe ex parte communications receivad regardin� tha merits
of aray pending quasi-judicial ma�tter; prcwides fnr su�h ��cl�re priar to or du�g meeting at which a
vs�e w91! be taken; requires tt� a reasonabie oppo�?unity be provi�ed to oppaner,ts c� c�inions
�x�ess�€f �r ex �te commur:icatir�ns to refute or respc�n�i t� su�y ce�►munir�eicros: clarifi�s thai ti�e
a�'S p�cxri5ic�ns �hatl n�at �estr�ct the authoritY of any kx�rd o� �omrnissi�r io �stabti�h iutes oc
prxedures goveming pub+ic hearings a,�d corntacrs with tacal pu�tic officiaits.
��cct�an 2. F�rc�vide� that tP�e ac4 shail talce effe�.^t upt�� �ec�tn�ng taw.
lII. FISf:A�, ANA4.�'S(S � E�OiVOMtC tMPAC7" ST�TEM�.R�`�
A. �i��A� lft+il�ACfi £?N STATE AG�NCIE�/STAT� �U�lC3�:
1. �Vs�rt��urrr�c� E�t�t�:
Ncane
�. F�e�urrin€�_E�f�ts:
N�t��
3. L��q �un �ffec4s t?ther Than Normai Gre�wth:
����
4. Tt��l Reve�ues and �x�nditu�es.
NCH i�
STAV�C?ARO �ORM � 1/90
STORAGE NAME: h0005s1 a.ee
DATE: March 9, 1995
' PAGE 4
B. FISCAL lMPACT UN LQCAL GQVERNMENTS AS A WMQl.E:
� 1. Non-recurrinq Effects:
None
2. Recurrirx� Effects:
None
3. Lnna Run E�fec:ts Other 1'han Normat Growth:
Ncxze
C. DIRECT ECQN4MIG IMPRCT ON PRlVAT'E SECTOR:
t. Direct Priva�„e Sectcx Casts:
Norte
2. Direct Private S.e�ior B�nefrts:
None
3. �ffec�ts an Com ition Private Enter �ise and Em I rnent Markets:
Nor�
p. FISCAL COMMEM'S:
None
�v. coNS�cav�r�c�� o� a� vu ����oN , s o� �s� ��.o�ia� caNS�rrru�aN:
A. ARPLtCAE�It..iTY OF ?Y,� {�alANDATES t�R4VfSlt)N:
Non�
�. ��ouc aF ��v�r��a� �,�sc�� a�rHO��rr:
None
�'. REDU�bN �� �TAT'E '!'AX �1-IA��(3 V1�Il"H CC��N'�I�S AN[} !4lUN(CIP�LfCl�S:
Nbne
`�'. C�AAM�N"t�:
Atthouc�h it�� bi11 p�rrr�i�� � p�rt� ce�rn�n�nica�ian on quasi-j�dtcial r��er� i� discl�sur� i� m�c�e a� 4t�� lac�i
pub(i� ��i�f, tt��€e �re �� �rt�risi�r�� �e8ated �a th� staius of the sifie�ati�n if no �iscl���r� �s r�ade.
Prasumably r►�ne�nplian�e with the disclosu�e requirem�nt couicfi r,�use a co�rt af I�w to tleciare a� ex
parte corr�mun�caticx� �ar�udiciai ar3d �!se R as a reasan to reberse the decis �f the bc�ard ar c�a�m4�sican
on t�e quasi-jt�elici�t matt��.
C@NSEI�EFi�4��Pi Gt� @( ��7�' �'G!�tAT1�Ad �Y t994 i�'�t.�LATl�l��
CS/HB 5 by Fiepresemativas Constantine, Minton, and others, �ted tor khe 1995 Session, is essentially the ex
paRe cammunica4it�n bill passeJ by fhe �ic�e during the 1994 Regufar Session as amend� by the �enaie.
• It is identicat to the bill filed fot Special Session D.
S'�'��lD�RD �'��iiN 11l90
STDAAG� NAME: h0005s13.ee
DA't'�: March 9, 1995
PAGE 5
Both th� House and Senate corrsidered biits during the 1994 Regular Sessions relafed to the issue nf sx
� parte communication with lacai public officiais on quasi-judicia! matters. The Committee on CQmmuniry
Affairs cc�mtained a comrr�ittee bill, HB 2585, and H8 77 by �tep. Constamine ta pass a committee
subs�itute, CSM6 2585 ANO HB 77, which subsequentty passed the Mouse by a vo#e of 111 to Q. The
Senate substitcrted the House b+li in place of its Senate companion, CS/�B 262 by Communiry Affairs, Sen.
Si{ver and others, amerxted 'R and sent it back to the House by a vote of 36-0, Ttte bili died in Hause
messages. HB 1 f�9-Q by Rep. R. Saunders, Ccxtstantine and Gc�ode, wais fileci in Special Sessivn D. Its
it�troduction was detened.
VI. AMENOMEIYTS OR C�MMI'TTE� SUBSTITIJ'r'E CNANGES:
TMe C�mmittee Substitute adds appainted afficials ta the de�initior� of 'Eoc�al pubiic a#ficiaP.
Vii, SiGNATURES
C(�MMRTEE ON ETHICS AND ELEC�'IONS:
Prepared by: Staif Direcior.
. un ap ar ane r w
STANDAFiD �QRt�i 11 /90
Westlaw,
Page 1
589 So.2d 1337, 16 Fla. L. Weekly D2059, 17 Fla. L. Weekly D26
(Cite as: 589 So.2d 1337)
P of rehearing.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, �'Vest Headnotes
Third District.
,jll Zoning and Planning 414 °�1735
Milton S. JENNINGS, Appellant,
v. 414 Zoning and Planning
DADE COLINTY and Larry Schatzman, Appellees. 414X Judicial Review or Relief
414X E Further Review
Nos. 88-1324, 88-1325. 41�k1735 k. In ger.eral. Most Cited Cases
Aug. 6, 1991.F�¢ (Formerly 414k741)
FN* Judge Barkdull participated in decision Landowner's timely petition activated com-
o � y , mon-law certiorari jurisdiction to review trial court
order which dismissed count alleging ex parte com-
On R�hearing Granted Dec. 17, 1991. munication between adjacent landowner's lobbyist
and county commissio:�ers prior to approval of vari-
ance, which gave to lai�downer leave to amend com-
Landowner petitioned for writ of certiorari to
plaint only against county an� to transfer matter to
challenge trial court order which dismissed landown- appellate division of cir:,uit cokrt, atid which dznied
er's count alleging due process violation as result of ex motion to dismiss count alleging that use permitted by
parte coxr.municati�n betwe�n adjacent landowner's variance constituted nuisance; order was departure
Iobbyisi and county commissioners before vote ap- from esse�tial requirenaents of law and required
proving use �arianc� for adjaceni landowner, vvhich plaintiff lanciown�r Fo litigate put�tive r,laim in pro-
gave to :a�dotz�n�r Ieave to a�nend complaini only ceeding thai could n�t affurd reliei requested.
against county, an3 ��v:�ich deni�� moii�n to dismiss
coiint alleaing r_uisance as res�.z?t of pPrmitted use. The
District �ou:�t ot A�peal, Nesbitt, J., held on rehearing Ll ���rng and Plat�nfng �E14 ��i73§
that: (1) laudcw�er`s tirr,ely pe�z�icn ac:ivated com-
rrior�-iaw 4er�iorari jurisdictian; f2) iobryist's ex parte 414 Zor�ing a�d Pla..sl:ng
coxnmunication cou?d violate due process despite 414X Juaicial Review or K�Iief
land�wr•.er's actu�l and constructive knowledge of ex �1�XfE� Further Review
parte communication; anl (3) landovvner's prima 41 �I<173� l�. :r� gen�r��. Mast Cited Cases
facie case of ex parte contacls would give rise to (Formerly 414k741)
presumption �f prejudice and shift burden to adjacent
landowner an� county ta rzbut the presumption. No impediment exisiea to exercise of jurisdiction
over defendant landowner, in that conur��n-law c:,r-
Quashed anci renianded. tiora� jurisdicti�n was activatzd '�y plaititiff land-
owner's timely petition.
Ferguson, J., filed concur_ring opinion upon grant
� 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works,
Page 2
589 So.2d 1337, 16 Fla. L. Weekly D2059, 17 Fla. L. Weekly D26
(Cite as: 589 So.2d 133'n
,[3], Constitutional Law 92 °�3879 92 Constitutional Law
92XXVI[ Due Process
92 Constitutional Law 92XXVII(B) Protections Provided and Dep-
92XXVII Due Process rivations Prohibited in General
92XXVII(B) Protections Provided and Dep- 92k3878 Notice and Hearing
rivations Prohibited in General 92k3887 k. Decision or detern.ination.
92k3878 Notice and Hearing Most Cited Cases
92k3879 k. In general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k318(1))
(Formerly 92k318(1))
Quasi-judicial decision based upon record is not
Quality of due process required in quasi judicial conclusive if minimal standards of due process are
hearing is not same as tliat to which party to full judi- denied. West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 1, ��' 9; U.S.C.A.
cial hearing is entitled. West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 1, � Const.Amends. 5, 14.
9; U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14.
f� Constitutional Law 92 °�3879
j4j Administrative Law and Procedure 15A
�311 92 Constitutional Law
92XXVII Due Process
15A Administrative Law and Procedure 92XXVII(B) Protections Provided and Dep-
15AIV Powers and Proceedings of Administrative rivations Prahibited in General
Agencies, Officers and Agents 921c3878 Notice and Hearing
15AIV(A) In General 92k3879 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
15Ak309 Proceedings in General (Formzrly 12k318(1))
l�Ak311 k. Judicial procedure; ap-
nlicability in gener�l. Most Cited Cases Quasi-jadicial hea�rirg generally meets basic aue
process requirements if part�es are provicied not;ce of
Adan�nistra?�ive Law a�d Pr�c�aiure 15:� �313 he�ring �nd onportunity to be heard. West's F,S.A.
Co.isi. Art. 1. § 9; U.S.C.A. Cons%Amends i4.
? SA A3riinistrative Law and Procedur�
15AIV Powers and Proceedings af Adm?�istrative 7i Zoning a�xd Pianning �14 °�'1339(3j
.�gancies, Officers and Agents
15.4IViA) In General 414 Zoning znd Planning
15Ak309 Proceedings in General 414VII Administration in General
15Ak313 k. Judicial proce�ure; ap- 414k1335 Proceedings in Gener�?
plicability of rules of evidence. Mr,st Cited Cases 414k1339 Notiee and Hezrirg
414k1339f3i k. Hearings and meetiiigs
Quasi judicial proceedings are not controlled by � general. �viost Cited Cases
strict rules of evidence and procedure. (Formerly 414k35�)
,[5( Cons�itutional La�a 92 �38R'7 In qt�asi-judicial zoning proceedings, parties must
be able to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses,
and be informed of all facts upon which commission
�O 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Ori.g. US Go��. Works.
Page 3
589 So.2d 1337, 16 Fla. L. Weekly D2059, 17 Fla. L. Weekly D26
(Cite as: 589 So.2d 1337)
acts. 15AIV Powers and Proceedings of Administrative
A�encies, Officers and Agents
f� �on�tite�t�ona! �,aw 9� �409f 15AIV A In General
15Ak314 k. Bias, prejudice or other dis-
92 Censtitutional Law qualification to exercise powers. Most Cited Cases
92XXVII Due Process
9?XXVII(Gj Farticular Issues and Applica- �'�'�tir�'ence �f r� p�arte r.c;mmunicati�n in qua-
tions �i-,j �r�liiial �ruc�taiiig ci�cs nut mun�late autc��na�ic
92X�iVII(G)3 P��operty in General ������al.
92k4091 Zoning and Land Use
92k4096 k. Proceedings and review. f llj Adminnstrative lLaw and Procedua 15ES
Most Cited Cases �3fl4
(Formerly 92k278.2(2))
15A Administrative Law and Procedure
t?� ��.iA��e t:�,i;au,�u,���;�tic��, I;�������t;eu 1ai1d���mPr's 15AIV Powers ari_d Proceedings ofAlministrative
lnbhyist and couizty ��o��ui�issione��s lr��Cua�a; thcv �. vi�d Agencies, Officers and Agents
i� a� prove u�e v�ri�ince for laaidowr��er cou(d �-i�,late 15AIV(A) In General
due process des�ite adjac�iit landowner's .lc;tual or 15Ak314 k. Bias, prejudice or other dis-
c�n:;t� i�cti��c 1<zio���led�:�� nl���°�,�r�ti�n��i������ta�� aud 'iailure qualification to exercise powers. Most Cited Cases
�u s!iL���e.la lu�byist. West's F.S..4. Const. Art. l, � 9;
U_S.C.A. Const.�.�nends. 5 1�. �jj�n� �f �;,��i��},�e resz2ltin� frnm �ex parte
c!�r�iat�?s ,t�iili �ieci,ion makcr� ii� quasi-jutlie:ial pro-
j9j Adnunistrative �,aw and �'rocedure �SA c�c�lin� siaics cause of aciion.
�3fi4
;� ���::�;n>s�a �tiv� �,a�:� a��i �'ro�edure l�a
:?A F dmi*ustrative La�� and Procedure �`�3��
15_;1�� � o��ers unci Fro�e�dings of Ad:ninistrative
,�' '�fi1C�;'> �I:({ f��CII?S 1 e L; �'�'�iTiini3tl'�itV' I�<; W��:1C I'�i'OC°tiUl'�
1 �r1I'J��il in (Tenera1 a S�TV De���ers ?n� Pr�ce�ding.� of Ad:ninistr2tiv°
15F.iv 14 k. Bias, prejudice or other ciis- qgerc�es Gf�'icers an� A�ent� '
c;u�lifcat:�n tic cxerc.ise p��vers. 1'Iost Cited �'as°;. 1 j�Iti'iA�;'r Gerseral_
:�,Alc": ±_�± ti. Bias, prejudi�e o: other di.3-
L� parte coni�niiriicaticins ai inhere?ltiv izn- c;ualiiicat:on t� �xercise powers. h•lost Ci�ed Cases
t�r��per zlnd are auathe�r�a to qi�a�i-,jirilicis�l ��rt�ccc�l-
'Tl�>S; i(IItISI-JIi4�11"l�I� (�1�1(.t't 5�](iI.!)(I ;i�-111(� �,l�l �I.IC�I �`�� af��r,�j�;�a�j ��.11'tV�S rlrOC�f Y}lAf Q'K ]Y`AP�'E,' CJT:
�o:ita�l� wi�tr� thty a�c i�luiililiul�le. iact occu�r�d ���itli �iccisi�n nial:cr5 in q�aasi-juc�icial
�,�ncc��iiin� . ii, cf{ect i� pr��titnu��<) 1�> l�c prajudic_i;�l,
�j Aciministrative �,aw and �roeedure �SA ��nie,� dei'eiidant p, cu��tra��� h�,� c�,m��cierice �v-
� ��Y=� 'td��,�c,� ., ��.;���, i� 1. � '��i '=04.
15A Administrative L,aw and Procedure f� �L`onst;�uti��a! L,�.w 9� �.�4027
<� 2013 "Thcroson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. lT� Gov: Works.
Page 4
589 So.ld 1337, 16 Fla. L. Weekly D2059, 17 FIa. L. Weekly D26
(Cite as: 5�9 So.2d 1337)
Cited Cases
92 Constitutional Law
92XXVII Due Process Once claim of prejudicial ex parte communica-
92XXVII(F) Administrative Agencies and tion in quasi-judacial proceeding before county
Proceedings in General commission is established, offending party will be
92k4027 k. Hearings and adjudications. required to prove absence of prejudice.
Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k318(1)) j16j Zoning �nd Plamning 414 �Y6��
In determining prejudicial effect of ex parte
414 Zoning and Planning
communication allegedly violatmg due process in 414X Judicial Review ar Relief
qt�asi-judicial proceeding, trial court should consider 414X C Scope of Review
the following criteria: what was gravity of ex parte 41�4 : C 3 Presum�tions and Burdens
commu�ication; whether cantac�s may have influ- 414k1682 k. Variances and exceptions.
enced agency's ultimate decision; whether party
Most Cited Cases
making improper conta�cs benefited frorn agency's (Formerly 414k678)
ultimate decision; whether conten±s of comm:micz-
tions were unknowri to opposii�g part:es; and whether �
Land�wner c prima faciP �a�e nf ?X nar'rQ c�n±act
vacating of agency's decision on remand for new
be�����;=�i :i�.;�� I<�n�ln�=.r�� t� , I��hl ttii�l r.c���i�.tv
proceedings would serve useful purpose. West's
� c<�uu�ii��iu�i�r5 beiore lhey vuieci to a}�prove use
F_S.A. Con>%� 1,�9; U_S.C_A. Cor�st.AtnEnds. 5
� xrs�s•iaii:~x� �t,i �.lja�':�;�i i;��«9otivner �voul�i �r�� ; r�sc to
14. - ;
�:)l��'SUlll�7(li)iI i�1��➢11'�tlt�ICt' '_i'�; 1 . , A, .' ;,�� <ii.j
f 141 Couaan�� 104 �,SFs �
�, l�j ��n�ng ar�� ��unri�g 434 {%�15L3
104 Cou:�ties
--- 41�} 7.�ning and P�anm:�g
lO�II Gove,mm�nt
-- 41�X Ju:�icial Re.�-zew or i_�;iief
IQ4�C� Cc;urty 3o�•d
41•�X;C) ScoUe of P.iY�iew
1C�4?�_`-� k. Apr:;a.s irv�1 decic�o��s. P��ost _ � z_ L; {„ r
r.4X��._ presum� c�r� �r_c? F�i.r�c_ s
��fTe� !�8SP5 �
� 14k1683 k. R_ebur.�al �f pre.;umn'ior_s:
lY�ost Citec'� : ases
A11e�at;or. ofpr. j��d?. i�l ��: y�r._•:�e c��mriunicatio<� (Fornier;y ��r1�k6'9j
Lii 1j�i°��.ss-;+t�laC'Shc �i?UCCCCiiil� i7syi�.Te cC:tiP_[�,� CGttuYliS-
sion enables �arty to ma�n�ain origiial e�tziianle c�t�se ,,
L,ando��ner's �rir:la .ac.e ca�e o: �� ���°�e con-
oi aciion to e �tabl;.en its �i^ir1,
tacts bet=N°�en aljar,e��t lan�o�✓�ier's iob�yist ancl
commissioners before they voted to apnrove use.
�`���=���gs �'�� ��� va�•iance for acijacen� lando�amer would shift burden
to county and adiacent lanciowner to rebut nresump-
104 Cou, tior. o�prejt�rice. �4'est'� F.S_��� 9��.30�!.
104II GovenLnent
104II(C) County Board .(Ig( 7�ning ard �'l�u�*aing 41� �15�3
1U4k5$ k. Appeals irom decisions. Most
n 2013 lhomson Reuters. No Claim ±o Orig. i_1S (Tov. Work.�.
Page 5
589 So.2d 1337, 16 Fla. L. Weekly D2059, 17 Fla. L. Weekly D26
(Cite as: 589 So.2d 1337)
ida Statutes (1989), that the contact was prejudicial.
414 Zoning and Planning The aggrieved party will be entitled to a new and
414X Judicial Review or Relief complete hearing before the commission unless the
414X(C) Scope of Review defendant proves that the communication was not, in
414X(C,Z3 Presumptions and Burdens fact, prejudicial. For the reasons that follow, we quash
414k1683 k. Rebuttal of presumptions. �e order under review with directions.
Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 414k679) Respondent Schatzman applied for a variance to
permit him to operate a quick oil change business on
To rebut presumption of prejudice from ex parte his property adjacent to that of petitioner Jennings.
contacts between landowner's lobbyist and county The Zoning Appeals Board granted Schatzman's re-
commissioners before they voted to approve use quest. The county commission upheld the board's
variance for landowner, landowner could rely on any decision. Six days prior to the commission's action, a
favorable evidence presented during adjacent land- lobbyist Schatzman employed to assist him ir_ con-
owner's case-in-chief, including that adduced durina nection with the proceedings registered his identity as
cross-examination of adjacent landowner's witnesses. required by section 2-11.1(s) of the Dade County
West's F.S.P.. � 90.304. Ordinances. Jennings did not attempt to determine the
content of any communication between the lobbyist
*1339 .iohn G. Fletcher, South Miami, for appellant. �d the commission or otherwise challenge the pro-
priety of any communication prior to or at the hearing.
Robert D. Koi 7ler and Roland C. Robinson Miami,
Robert A. Ginsburg, County Atty., and Eiieen Ball Following the commission order, Jer,nings filed
Mehta and Crai�H. Coller, Asst. County Attys., for an action f�r declaratory and injunctive relief in circuit
appellees. court whereir. he alleged Chat Schatzman's lobbyisi
communicated with �ome or all of the county com-
missi�ners prior to the vete, thus denying ien:�sngs
foel V. Lumer, Miami, for The Sie:ra Club as Ar.iicus dioe process both under the United States a�� Floridx
'� uc,nstitutions as well as seciion (A)(8) of the Citizers`
Bill af Rigrits, Dade County Charter. .iennings r�-
k�efore BARKDLILL, and FERGUS()N, ques:ed*1340 the cc�urt to cor�duct a Y�e�ring to e3tab-
�J• lish ths tn:th of the allegatians of th� complaint ar�c?
upon a faver�ble detern�ination then to iss�:e an in-
I=N* Judge Barkdull participated ir �ec?sion junctio� prchibiiing use of the properiy as allowed by
only. the coanty. Based upon the identical allegations, Jen-
nirgs also claimed in the second c�unt of his com-
0��1 REHEARING GF,ANTED plaint that Scl use of the �e�mitted vari:�nce
NESBITT, Judge. constituted a nuisance which he requested the court to
The issue we confront is the effect of an ex part� enjoin. The trial court dismissed Count I of the corri-
communication upon a decision emanating from a plaint, against both Dade County anci Schatzman. The
��asf-ja�l:cial proceeding of t?�e Dade County +�our� gave �ennings l�ave �nly against l�ade C��unty to
Commission. V:'e hold that upon proof that a r�u�- amend r.he compiaint and to transier ihe matter io tiie
si-judicial officer received an ex parte contact, a appellate division of the circuit court. The txial court
nresumption arises, pursuant to section 90.304, Flor- denied Schatzman's motion to dismiss Count 1I and
C� 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gev. Works.
Page 6
589 So.2d 1337, 16 Fla. L. Weekly D2059, 17 Fla. L. Weekly D26
(Cite as: 589 So.2d 1337)
required him to file an answer. Jennings then timely GVoodhanz i�. bVil/ianas,_ 207 So.2d 320 (Fla. lst DCA
filed this application for common law certiorari. 1968�. N���ieth�(e:;:;. cert��in ,tan�iarti�; ��f l>asi� f�sirn�:;s
tnu,i he �tclir�r�cl lv in ��r<I�:r !u al�f�7rd duc prc�ce,�5. .S'��e
[1]�21 We have jurisdiction based on the follew- ��lctlev, 4ll So.2d at 184; Cit- 0 1Lliami v. Jen�is, 139
ing analysis. The trial court's order dismissed So.2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962�. �_'on5eqnen�l��, a��u��-
Jennings' equitable claim of non-record ex parte ��-�.1t«lici d��;i�;i�_ni b��sc�l up�,�� nc�� r�,��.�.�r�1 i.5 cu�t con-
communications while it simultareously reserved �'������'�' ���r���nian_�f �;±n��ul��rsl, ��frluc p�oc�;•r; fn��. �iezlie�]
jurisdiction for Jennings to amend his complaint so as See Mosgan ti UIZZCL'C�SIQIC'S 298 U.S. 468, 480-81, 56
to seek common law certiorari review p�arsuant to S.Ct. 906, 911-12, 80 L.Ed. 1288 (1936); YGeste��n
Dacfc Countv r. Mar°ca, S.A.; 326 So.2d 183 Gillette, Inc. v. AYi�ona Corp. Cornm'vr 121 Ariz. 541,
Fla.1976 . Under Marca, Jennings would be entitled 592 P.2d 375 (Ct.App.1979�. A c�uasi-jnciicial I���ari��g
solely to a review of the record as it now exists. ��'t7�� ��ice•t�. h�isic �iu� � r�.,ress ie��iii�•cment� ii� ihe
However, since the content of ex parte contacts is not F�����i i� �, nre pt��vici�cl uuti���• �,1� [he liearirig and an �>�-
part of the existing recor�, such review would prohibit ���rn�nirv �t, he h�;ir�i l�i ��uasi-ju�iicial zonine pro-
the ascertainment of the contacts' impact on the ����i�i��, �h� pariies mn�t I�e able t� �reeeni Nvicl�n,�e,
commissicn's determination. This order has the effect ������>; ��' �`������� ���=s= a�ica I�� �.!i�oi�ued �i� ail t-h�
then of so radieally altering the relief available to 1��,'i, ��1��,",a i;'i���:l� �1;�� ��t�it,��u.;,>ion �lc�,;. Corcil Reef
Je*uings that it is *he fiznct?onal ec�uival�nt of requir- Nzc�vseries, Inc. v. BcrGcock Co.�410 So.2d 648. 652
ing him to litigate in a different forum. Thus, Jennings'
(Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
timely petition aciivates our common law certiorari
j aris�icticn because the cr�er so�:ght to be reviewed a) FN 1. It was conce��d at ora; argur:�ent that
constiiutes a depariurc from tx�e esseniial requi�ements ihe }�earing before �h� commissio?i in this
of law, aud b; reqni:es him to litigatP a putative claim case «�as quasi-jku�icia?.
:n a procveding that cannot affor� him the relief re-
ques�ed a�7�1 for that i•eascn does not afford him ar ;he repo: ed decisions considerin� the due pro-
adequate �emedy. See Tirntiilu v. i��ilinian, n7 �o. �d cPss effPet �f ar. �t� ���te cer�muric�t?cn l��on a
413 Fia,l_9�Si; %Joj_r�is �_Soz�ehey�r� Bell Tel.,c� Tci_ ������-J��ic�ai �±eci�i-�;! r�rv Len`licti�*�b, Some coarts
—� --- —
Co.__3_�.4 � i08 1%la. �_c.i I�C'A 1R60;�. The same hol� tnat a� �x ��::��� c�.��muni��ukic�;i do�s n�t deiiy
3'ei9S�:�11i:1g �J?S =:Ot :tr Y�ly t7_�2iT1St .�'iC�:2iZIT!1ll. NOri`�.'- �l'=v })I'p�k'S� �1�2i'.'f' ti1C Sl1�St3i1C� Of C�':2 COITL.'Y1711�1C3-
t�2Fl�C8� bPCd�.1SP �xJ? }12Ve ]?]?7SC�1Ct:OT1_ r.i.]0rP 1S ?10 11!?- �10:1 zF.'�� ��1raJ�� CI G?S�•ti'iF,)% ��' Cr�` �OiTl��lc111:?Il�
peC11ll1?t?t t�1 OUl' ?Xe?'C1S1T?� 1t (`V?1' �CI1c1tZ111aTJ 1S 1 r7�1't� IT� ti:i2E ¢C i°�till� iC i�Il ��iC 1'i.C;O;'L�. C('.e, F.g.,
�azrty. �d���: �chr�r.__sc�� 1`i�,rl::�. ar�� IJ.�.__���, �410. ��1
S_Ci_ I4�Q.�i4_;1-3;' 2& i_._�_i.2:1__�4� �19i1�; 'v_'!2iieci
j3j[��IjS_;�6]j7� .�t t�� outset oi ct�r revzew e�f the �ir�zne.c, �f�c. ti�_�.��_B„ 3O9 � 2t' 238 (ll.C.Cir.lR621;
* '� ,-„- ; c � �—
•i�al ce�i1's �ismiss�l_ ;�c «rrc that ihe clu<<li��. «1��ilie �/.a°i°�tt , _S � . _,_-��_'_2� __� Su��__8 .7�_834
pr��ce�,s�. requirc�i u� a��n,isi-judicial I�earitie i; not the �D.D C_i_9E�4?. C�;.her cvurts to,�a: , apon trie nature of
�5��tin, as thai �c, �� (>><:h ,E �7z�� �v 1�� (uil judicial lce��rin��, i�, the ex pa�te communication and whether it was ma-
r�ntii�[r><i. See G'��ss v. z,o� e�, 419 U.�. 56�. a5 S.Ct. terial to tlie point that it pr�juc�i�.ed the c�m�laining
729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725�1 y7S1; Hcaclley 1�. Deparinzent of party and thus resulted in a denial of procedural due
Hc?�n?�T.. 411 _So?�i � t�4 (Fla.? �8?.) i�u�i���-�uc�ici;_�( proc��s. �'.g., Yb'�sie!��Icrn%ru!r�ien,r ��_Fn1l�:!i�n C'c�nlrol
�,rc�cc�ecl�n�rs ai� ��c�i c:c;ntruUr,�l Lv sUict �tilc:, ;�i r�vi- B�i'.._175 Ili 1�5 Ili �ec 574, `>30
�lence ai.ci �,3r�orx�tlure. See Astof�e i�. Flor-idc� Real Es- N.E.2d 682 (Ct.App.1988�, appeal deniecl, 125 I11.2d
tcrte Cona;�a'n, 374 So.%a �0 (Fla. 3d DCfi 197�; 575, 130 il1.I)ee_490, 537 N.�.2ci 819 �i9891; Pro-
�O 2013 Thomson Reut°rs. No Claim tc Orig. US Uov. V1�orks.
Page 7
589 So.2d 1337, 16 Fla. L. Weekly D2059, 17 Fla. L. Weekly D26
(Cite as: 589 So.2d Y337)
fessional Air Traffic Controllers Org. ( PATCO) 1�.
Fecleral Lubor Relcrtions Aecth. 685 F.2d 547, 564-65 13 In cieternuning the prejudicia? effect of an ex
(D.C.Cir.1982) Erc�mcr�2 v. Ingraham� 28 A.D.2d 5, parte cemmunication, the trial court should cor.sider
280 N.Y.S.2d 865, 870 (Ct.Ap .Ip 967), the following criteria which we adopt from PATCO
685 F.2d at 564-65:
j� The county adopts the first position and argues
that Jennings was not denied due p: ocess because he [w]hether, as a result of improper ex parte commu-
either knew or should have known of an ex parte nications, the agency's decisionmaking process was
communication due to the mandaton� regis±ration irrevocably tainted so as to make tne ultimaie
required of lobbyists. The county further contends that judgment of the agency unfair, either as to an in-
Jennings failed to avail himself of section 33-316 of nocent party or to the public interest that the agency
the Dade County Code to subpoena the lobbyist to was obliged to protect. In making this determina-
testify at the hearing so as to detect and refute the tion, a number of considerations may be relevant:
content of any ex parte communi�ation. We disagree the gravity of the ex parte coirununications� wh�tiier
with the county's position. the contacts may have influenced the agency's ul-
timaie decision; whether the party maiting the im-
fql(� �l f?? 1� 1�' F:�� �a� i€� �:omm�mica,ti�m are proper �ontacts be�efited from the agenc�'s ultim�te
ltlElt;ft;ltl!" i1l�E)t�7��c.i �rt(j tli� �1ii81�1�i12�t 10 t�lld- CieC1S1011; W11et1101' t�10 C011t011tS Of t'tl� COri1I11AI11C3-
si-,j��diciui ��ucec�lines. aJu�si-judicial officcrs tions were unknown to opposing parties, who
sl�oi�lci si:�c�i�J F�1� sucl� co�itact,, ��-liere they are ideu�i- therefore had no opporlunity to respond; and
iiab�e.. Ilo��vecer, �M�e �ec<�g�ii�e t}1e reality that coi;�- wnether vacation of ihe agency's decisior and re-
missioners are elected officials in wliicll capacity t}��:y mand for new proceedings would serve a useful
n�iay unavoidably be the recipients of ui�.S011ciie�l t�: parpose. Since the principal concerns oi tb_e couri
p:�rte cou�,mi�;iications regarciing quasi-jiitficial are the inie�riiy of the p�•ocess and �i�e rairness �f
m��tter,5 tii�ry ��re ic� decicle. "I'lle occurrence oi �,ii��h ; the result, mechanieal :ules :�ave :itt'.� piace in a
comninnic�t�on in a quasi j�2diei�( prcceedin� does ;�dicial deeision wbe±her to vae�t� a ve*�ahle
l101 lIldt3:�alC f,U!.�?llidil�, 1cY�>':;dl �Jr:t�c;� ��1r t�,;c'. {lOi� 3��Z1C}� �I'OGBZ�L'?� �S�w2Ci, �u2i� SUi}i i��Gl: i0�7 Ttl�?Si
that i(ic. <tllcga�iun �,l�p�ejudice rcauliiu� l�rt�nt c:� �.e.i��tz ofneeessity� be an e�e�cisA :�i :�r���t*�bxA �:i_sct'°tic+n.
coniacts �.e-ilh the decisiun aiakeis �n ,i qu�isi-judie�i<al
�)IitG'i:;`(�111P: �St'il�i:i :i GBIIS(.' Ot 3C�lilll. �.5 l�"LS}3 r � �•
�ICCOi'Q C Ck E H�i,!! Li1C. 1-, t'Orllili0l4 � niiJi'p(
�1:nur��:�,,reni PATC'O. T'13�r� thc� �t 3�ti� �:�,1 l,�r-��%s 3�i. 116 :il.A�p,3d 5�6 71 Iil_:��_587.__6Js
�—�__-- — -
�?������i� ii�at �r es part�e cnr�t�ct r>cc�r-��d. its e*�e��i i� ,�;_E.-'d 5�5, 57i iCt.�_pn.tSf;31 czi7u? 2G`l Il?.2_ ?3,
p:esumed to b� p;:��u,l��ial ���:icss t�l� :t��ien�fant ;9IIl.l�ec. �=i,.4�1_�?.E.2dhf_� (i�Y�i.
- --
,,��,�,:s; (Iti� r_��r�nai��� l>> r;nnti.�r �s�isi����c�°. ;, ?� ;�)4.
.522 t�. C=Ii�G.'�YV:?!�!'_ :7�I:C"l 7'C';%1';_';• 1!, 17� � i j� �Ct',01'Cllll��y� �T'? 1'lOi�i t�'itlt t=1.`. 3i1C�'1ilUI_
J1
So?d 438 (Fla.lyi9 (fo_� d_sc�ssior: oF rebutsable of a re'ac?icial ex ati•�¢ �:; '�
p J p°Y �., rr:r�:u��icat�c.i fl3�� in s
presuinption afrecting tue burden ot proot�. H�,� <�u,�: ����i-,���ie3al proceeding be:orc ti�e D•r_:�� i.o�nty
k�i<��a�Ic:i<�� �nul ,:ai�icnc;; ��f il� �;��;iact'>, impact :�ie
Comm�ssion �s,�ill enable z party *o r_:aantain an origi-
p�ciili�rlyin ti�e hancis nr�rhe �ie�t��n�lan[ �riiasi-j�iiliciai nal equitable cause cf actic�� te esia�lisri its ;;luin:.
uiiiccrlsj, �'�_� litic( ;i1cL �i uu�Ur__.;t a}>utuulta�c ic a_
T Onc� established, the ofi�ncliilg par�y •.�: i:i be requir�d
�echs�icuLle Vide�. Svs ��. ,�r;ze i�ubl��� 479 So.2d 81C -��,,
— - t� prove an abser�ce of preju�ice.
(Fla. 3d DCA 1985�; Allstate Firz�cnce CorJ�. i�. Zina-
r,terman, 330 F.2d 740 (Sth Cir.196�).
C� 2Q? 3 Thomson Retzters. No Claim ±o Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 8
589 So.2d 1337, 16 Fla. L. Weekly D2059, 17 Fla. L. Weekly D26
(Cite as: 589 So.2d 1337)
FN2. In such a proceeding, the principles and DCA 1984) (county commission acting in a
maxims of equity are applicable. See 22 legislative capacity).
F1a.Jur.2d Ec�uitv �� 44, et seq_�1980�.
BARKDULL, J., concurs.
[ 16] � 171f 181 In the present case, Jennings' com- FERGUSON, Judge (concurring).
plaint does not allege that any communication which I concur in the result and write separately to ad-
did occur caused him prejudice. Consequently, we dress two arguments of the uppellees: (1) This court in
direct that upon remand Jennings shall be afforded an Coral ReefA�inseries, Inc. v. Babcocic Co., 410 So.2d
opportunity to amend his complaint. Upon such an 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), rejected attempts to catego-
amendment, Jennings shall be provided an evidentiary rize county commission hearings on district boundary
hearing to present his prima facie case that ex parte changes as "legislative," while treating hearings on
contacts occurred. Upon such proof, prejudice shall be applications for special exceptions or variances as
presumed. The burden will then shift to the respond- "quasi judicial"; and (2) the petitioner does not state a
ents to rebut the presumption that prejudice occurred cause of action by allegir.g simply that a lobbyist
to the claimant. Should the respondents produce discussed the case in a private meeting with members
enough evidence to dispel the presumption, then it will of the County Commission prior to the �earing. It is
become the duty of the trial judge to determine the clear from Judge Nesbitt's opinion for the court that
claim in li ht of all the evidence in the case. F � ;,F �'`� neither ar
g gument is acce�ted.
FN3. In rebutting the presumption of preju- Legislative and Quasi-Judicial Functions Distinct
dice, respondent may rely on any favorable in sup�o�i of its argument, that "[t]his Court has
evidence presented during the claimant's previously reject�d attempts to categorize county
case-in-chief, including that adduced during comrt�issioti heanings on district boundary changes as
respondent's cross-examination of claimant's `legisiaiive', whiie treatv*�g hearings on applications
witnesses. for special exceptions or varianees as ` qua-
s;-judpcia!'," Dade County cites Cof�ul ReefNi.rrs•eries,
FN4. Under the PATCO test a�3opted, onE cf If'-c. i'. ?3u�ecck r'of�apccny, 41Q So?d 548 (Fla. 3d
trF p.i�.nary concerns is whether the ex parte D�'.4 1982). The argument is made for the purpose of
cozntnunieat�on had safficient impact up�:� s3i��ing this case wi±lvn w�iat the respondents �e-
the decision and, ;1�e�efore, �vhzther �he va- s�:�ibe as a l�gi�l��ive-faneti�n exception to the rule
cat:on �f tt�ie ager.cy's decision and remand against �x �art� cor..munic�tions. Indeel, ther� is
fcr a new pe�ceeding wo�ald be �ikely 40 lzr��uage xn ±he i vrc�i Reaj opini�n, particularly ihe
c:�ange the result. �icta tha� "it is +.he char�eter of the admir�isir�ti�e
hea: inq leading to the action of the administrative
For t}�.e foregoi: reasons, the applicEition iar rod3' that detetmit�es the label" as legislative or qua-
comir_cn 2aw �ertiorari i� granted. The orders of the si-v udi�ial, Ccral xeef at 652 which, when read oi�t of
ci:cuit court are quashed F —"' and remanded with di�' context, lends support to Dade i;ounty's contentions.
rections.
As an abstract proposition, the statement is inaccurate.
F�IS, I`�othing in this decision shall affe;,t our Wheieas ±he chara:.ter �f an admitustrati�e riear-
holding in I�uak Wczlton Leaaace of America ir.b will dete.rmine wr.ether th� proceeding is �ua-
v_M oiaroe Cuunt>> 448 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 3d si judicial ar executive, De G�•oot v. S'he�eld. 95
So.2d 912,_915 (Fla.1G57), it is the nature nf the act
�O 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 9
589 So.2d 1337, 16 Fla. L. Weekly D2059, 17 Fla. L. Weekly D26
(Cite as: 589 So.2d 1337)
performed that determines its character as legislative It is settled that the enactment and amending of
or otherwise. Suburbcan Me�lical Center v. Olathe zoning ordinances is a legislative function-by case
Cvmmunitv Hosp., 226 Kan. 320 328 597 P 2d 654, law, Schauer v. Citv ofNlicrnti Beach, 112 So.2d 838
661 (1979). See also *1343Wri1��-een Co. i-. Polk FIa.1959 ; Machado v. Mus.�rove, 519 So.2d 629
Count�:, 5?4 So.2d 1119, 1120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (Fla. 3d DCt� 1987) (en banc), rev. denied, 529 So.2d
("The quasi judicial nature of a proceeding is not 694 (F1a.1938), by statute, sections 163.3161 and
altered by mere procedural flaws."). 166.041, Florida Statutes (1989), and by ordinance
Dade County Code § 35-303. See also Anderson, Law
A judicial inquiry investigates, declares and en- of Zoning, § 1.13 (2d Ed.1976) (zoning is a legislative
forces liabilities as they stand on present facts and act representing a legislative judgment as to how land
under laws supposed already to exist. That is its within the city should be utilized and where the lines
purpose and end. Legislation, on the other hand, of demarcation between the several zones should be
looks to the future and ehanges existing conditions drawn); 101 C.J.S. Zof7inv unci L�rnc� Plcrnning � 1
by making a new rule to be applied thereafter to all �58� (same). It is also fairly settled in this state that
or some part of those subject to its power. the granting of variances, and special exceptions or
permits, are quasi judiciat actions. y��cl�reen Cn. v.
Suburhun Medical Centet•. 59? P.2d at 661 1'olk Count�•, 524 So.2d 1119, 1120 (Fla. 2d DCA
uotin PrefTtis v. fltlantic Coasi Line Co.. 211 U.S. 1988 ; CitZ, of Neia� Snavrna Bectch v. B�rton. 414
�q g —
? 10, 226, 29 S.Ct. 67, 69 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908)). Fv� So.2d 542 (Fla. Sth DCA) (Cowart, J., concurring
specially), rev. �enied, 424 So.2d 760 (F1a.1982); Clll;
o A opkcz 1�. Orun,�e Coc�nt�� 299 So.2d 657 Fla. 4th
FNI. Relying on Coral Reef, the majority DrA 1974); Sur Rczl' Hornes. Inc. r. Cucrr�ri� ofDacfe
opinion refers to "quasi judicial zoning pro- 166 So.2d 827 (Fla_3d DCA 1964).
ceedings," a confounding phrase which has
its genesis in Rznker M�cterials Corp. v. Dccde
Coisntv. 528 So.2d 904, 9�6 n. 2(Fla. 3d FN2. a variance is a mo3ification of the
D�A 1987). There Da�� County argued to zoning orciinance which may be granted
this cour[ thai tlie according of "procedural when such variance will not l�e co�iir�ry to
dae procesc" converts a legislative proceed- the public interest an� wh�n ow��lg ta con-
in� into a quasi juu�icial nroceeding citi�g ditions �eculiar tv t'�;, pro�:erty an� not the
Cor�xl k�ejr That proposition rans afi�ut of aa result of the actions of the applica�t, �. li±eral
entire body o� ae�nunis�rative Ia�v. If an act is enforcement oi the ordirance wou1� resuit in
ir vssence :egi�lat�ve i:� chara�ter, �Y:e iact of
unrzec�ssar,� an�. u��ue t��r�iship. ? I=1a�ur23�
a notice and a l��earing dc�es not transform it Biiil��iiag L:rr�arl � r,rt!t•cl.s. � i 40
into a judicial act. �f it would �e a legislative �
act witr�ut noiice a�d a l�rr�rir�g, it is still a
legislur_iv� act with notice and � hParing. �ee The norrrb�l function oi a��riance is to
Pr•entis v. Atl�rntic Coast L,ine C o.. ? I 1 U. S. permit a change in "building restrictions or
210 29 S.Ct. 67, 53 L. I 50 1908 ; height and density limitations" but tiot a
Recz�crn v. Farmc�fs' Lo�in & Trust Co., 154 change in "use classifications". Georae v.
U_S. 362, 1� S.Ct. 1047. 33 L.Ed. 1014 Miami S'lao;•es Y'illca� 1�Q So_2d ?23 Fta.
1� 89�}), 3ci DC� 1963},
FN3. f1n administrative body acts qua-
�O 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Go��. Works.
Page 10
589 So.2d 1337, 16 Fla. L. Weekly D2059, 17 Fla. L. Weekly D26
(Cite as: 589 So.2d 133'�
si judicially when it adjudicates private the 1979 zoning hearing. There is a requirement for
rights of a particular person after a hearing procedural fairness in all land use hearings, whether
which comports with due process require- on an application for a boundary change or a variance.
ments, and makes findings of facts and con- Adherence to that constitutional standard, however,
clusions of law on the disputed issues. Re- does not alter the distinct legal differences between
viewing courts scrutinize quasi judicial acts quasi judicial and legislative proceedings in land use
by non-deferential judicial standards. See cases.
Citv ofA�opka r. O�•crnae Count�= 299 So 2d
657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). We clarify Coral Reef, in accordance with its
facts, as holding only that legislation denying an ap-
On review of legislative acts, the court plication for rezoning has a preclusive effect on a
makes a deferential inquiry, i.e., is the ex- subsequent application for the same rezoning, unless
ercise of discretionary authority "fairly the applicant can show substantial and material
debatable." Southti•vest Ranclres Home- changes ir. circumstances. Ti�eister v. Citv of tl�Iicmai,
otivners Ass'n L'. BYOb6'Cli'CZ COZli1lV 502 575 So.2d 2l8 (Fla. 3d DCA 19911, relying on Coral
So.2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denicd, 51 I Reef. An interpretation of Coral Reef as holding tY��at
So.2d 999 (F1a.1987). Further, there is no there is no longer a distinction between legislative
requirement that a governmental body, actions and quasi j��dicial actions of a county com-
acting in its legislative capacity, support its mission in land use cases goes far beyond the actual
actions with findings of fact and conclu- holding of the case, and is clearly erroneous. See note
sions of law. i supra.
A varance contemplates a nonconfonning use in Reliax�ce 6y the respondents on I�nccic Y�alton
order to alleviate an undue burden on the individual LeaUi�e orAmericcr �-. N1o�zroe Co��ntv 448 So.2d I 170
property owner caused by the existing zonir.g. Re- (Fla. 3d DC.� 1484), is similarly misplaced. In that
zoning contemplates a change in existing zoning rules case �ve reld that county commissioners, when actin�
and regulati�ns within a dist,~ict, s�abdivis;o� �r other in their legislative cap�citi�s, have the ribl te pu'c�licl}�
eomparatively la:ge area in a given governmenta: un:t. state their views on pending legislative ma�ters. Izaak
Ti°c�ai� v. Bird 53 So?d 717 {Fia.1951,; P�Ic�vfloti+.-er� 'rPalton League does net ac�dress the issue oi� e� pa�t�
Pr�onet•h�, Inc. i�. Cit�� nf For°t L�ccr�ler�[�ile. 13� �a �� c�runur_ic��ti�ns ar prehearir.g �ronaancem�i�ts ii�
849 _lFla. 2d DCA 1962); 101 A C.J.S. Z��t�in� r•nc� ruasi-ju€lf�4a1 proceedings.
Lcc�2cl Flcznnin� § 231 1( 979).
Lobbyi�zg
Cor�l Reef Case Clarified Tennings argues l:ere that thP behir�C-the-scenes
� oral Reef involved a legislat:ve acti�n. The is- l�bbying F "� of the .^,ommsissioners by Schatzn�an, for
sue before the court was wh�ther x1344 th:,re w<�s a the purpose of influencing the ot.tcome ef ar, appeal
showing of substantiai_ and material changes in a 1979 from a quasi judicial proceeding, violat�d the Citi-
application for a rezoning so that a 1978 denial of an zens' Bill of Rights �" of the Dade County Charter, as
application for the same changes, on the same parcel, well as the due �rocess provisions of the T]nited States
by t�e same applicant, would r.ot be precluded �y res ana Florida Constitutions. We agrez, ob��i�usly, E1�at
judicata principles. It was r.ot necess� to hold the the �obbyir�g act:ons were unlawfi?l. Dade Caunty and
1978 hearing quasi judicial in character in order to Schatzman respond that Jennings is entitled to no
find that the 1978 resolution had preclusive effect on relief because he has not alleged and demonstratec� a
�O 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. WorYs.
Page 11
589 So.2d 1337, 16 Fla. L. Weekly D2059, 17 Fla. L. Weekly D26
(Cite as: 589 So.2d 133'n
resulting prejudice. In the opinion on rehearing this Prejudice is to be presumed, without further
court now clearly rejects that argument. proof, from the mere fact that any county commis-
sioner granted a private audience to a lobbyist, whose
FN4. "`Lobbying' is defined as any personal p�'pose was to solicit the commissioner to vote a
solicitation of a member of a legislative body certain way in an administrative proceeding for rea-
during a session thereof, by private inter- sons not necessarily addressed solely to the merits of
view, or letter or message, or other means �e petition, and that the commissioner did vote ac-
and appliances not [necessarilyJ addressed cordingly. Starting with the legal definition of lobby-
solely to the judgment, to favor or oppose, or �S, *1345 see note 4 supra, and applying common
to vote for or against, any bill, resolution, lcnowledge as to how the practice works, there is a
report, or claim pending, or to be introduced compelling reason for placing the burden of proving
..., by any person ... who is employed for a no prejudice on the party responsible for the ex parte
consideration by a person or corporation in- communication.
terestPd in the passage or defeat of such bill,
resolution, or report, or claim, for the purpose Although an ex parte communication with a
ef procuring the passage or defeat thereof." quasi-jud�eia! tribunal makes its final action voida-
Black's Law Dictionary 1086 (rev. 4th ed. ble, rather than void r�er se, the presumption which is
1968), (Emphasis supplied). The work of drawn from the favt of the improper conduct, is ap-
lobbying is performed by lobbyists. plied to promote a strong social policy and is sufficient
evidence to convince the fact-finder that the innocent
A lob�yist is oi�e who makes it a business party has been �rej�.���ced; the rebuttable presumption
to "se�" members ef a legislative body and irriposes upon thz party against wnom it operates the
procure, by persuasion, imporlunity, or the burden of prooi c�ncerning the nonexistence of the
resumed fa Ct. FtiG 9Q.304, F1a.Stat. 1
use of inducements, the passing of bills, P �_ ( 991); De-
pablic as well as private, which involve G�1t�tment of �4Jrica�,ta�re & Censumer Sen�s. i-.
g��ir. to the pr�moters. Id. Bo«anno�568 Su.2d 2�, 3 i-:52 Fia.1990�; Black's
Law Dictionarv 1349 �4th ed. 1968).
FivS. �ec'iorf a(8), �itizens' Bill of Rights,
1.7a�� Ca��ry �harter, p�avides in pertinent � N6, P,4 � CC: i.._Fecler�irl Ln�ier_Rel�rtio�Zs
pait: 4utha;�i�;. 685 �.2c� 54.^- �D.C.Cir.IRR2), rz-
lied or b�� Judgz Nesbit�, supp�r±s this view.
At ar�� zaning or otrer hearing in which `Z'ne.re the cou±� ��as construing section
revie�� is e:�clusiveiy b� certiorari, a party 5 � ���)� i ot� the ��minist�rative Procedure
or his counsel shail be entitled to present Act, gaverning ex parte communications.
1 �ase er Je£ense ry oral or dccumentary �'he t ct pr�vid�;s, in subsection (C), that a
evidence, tc submit rebuttal evi�ence, and meniber of the body involved in the deci-
to conduc± such cross-examination as may sional process who receives any prohibited
be reqaired tor a full and true disclosure of �ommu�ication �hatl place the contents of
the. fa�ts. The decision of any such agency, �ie communication on public record. Sub-
board, d�p��tment ar authority must be section �D► s�ates ihai where die communi-
based upo:� the facts in the record. cat�on was '�no wi�giy made by a party in
violation of tl�is subsection, the party may be
required "ta show �ause why his claim or
�O 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. �,Uorks.
Page 12
589 So.2d 1337, 16 Fla. L. Weekly D2059, 17 Fla. L. Weekly D26
(Cite as: 589 So.2d 133�
interest in the proceeding should not be dis-
missed, denied, disregarded, or otherwise
adversely affected on account of such viola-
tion." 5 U.S.C.A. ��' S57(d)(1}(C), (D).
Ex parte lobbying of an administrative body
acting quasi-judicially denies the parties a fair, open,
and impartial hearing. Sztbasrbun Medical Center v.
Olczthe Conznzunitv Hosz�., 226 Kan. 320 597 P.2d 654
1( 979). Adherence to procedures which insure fair-
ness "is essential not only to the legal validity of the
administrative regulation, but also to the maintenance
of public confidence in the value and soundness of this
important governmental process." Id. 59? P.2� at 662
(citing 2 Am.Jur.2d Administratire Lativ t 351). The
constit�ational compulsions which led to the �stab-
lishment of rules regarding the disqualification of
judges apply with equal force to every tribunal exer-
cising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. 1
Am.JurZd Aclministf�utii�e Lala� � 64, at 860 (1962);
CitLo�'T�rllahcrssee r. Flof•iclu Puh.. Set-��. Cenana'n. 441
So.2d 620 (Fla.i983) (standard used in disqualifyuig
agency head is same standard used in disqualifying
judge). See c�lso Rvae�s v. Fi•iedmuf7, 438 F.Su�p. 42�
(E.D.Tex.1977) (rule a� to disqualifi�at�o� of judges is
same for admiiustrative agencies as i� is for caurts) .
(�iting K. Davis, Administrative L�w § 12.04, at 25G
(1472)). Rittei• v. Bvu:-c� o�cna;n5•s offldn:�Z.s Co�r.�
9b �Vash.2d 5�3. 637 P.?d 54�19KI1 �samej.
F1a.App. 3 Dist.,1991.
Jennings v. Dacie County
589 So.2d 1337, 16 FIa. L. �Veek,y D20�9, 1% Fla, L.
��Veekly D26
END OF DO� UMENT
�O 2013 'Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 3
658 So.2d 1069, 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1538
(Cite as: 658 5o.2d 1069)
from coastal ,selbacic ordina��cc. circuit court should
jGJ, Zoning and �'l�a��arag 4fl4 �%�53 ha��c re�iewed evictence befoie board and detei�mined
�a�lactlier �here �v<i.� >;ubst��iYtial, competent evidence to
414 ZQniug and Plaru�ing support denial in libht of� all criteria oF ordinance,
414.X Variances and Exceptions rath�r illai� lin�iti�a�� its revie�v (o issuc; of �a�llether
414IX B Proceedings for Variances and Ex- denial of v�riance �vo�ild impose unre�sonable hard-
ceptions
sliip on propc��ty own��r. Saia�ota Cuuilty, Fla., Ordi-
414k 1553 k. Rehearing or reconsideration.
iiancc 79-03.
Niost Cited Cases
(Formerly 414k547) *Y070 Jorpe L. Fernandez, County Atty., and Alan W.
Roddv, Asst. County Atty., Sarasota, for petitioners.
Discussion between members oi board of county
comrnissioners regarding procedures underlying vo�e wi11_iam W. Merrill, III, of Icard, Merrill, Cu11is,
approving zoning variance did not violate "Govern- Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, P.A., Sarasota, ior re-
m�nt in Sunshine Law," and any possible technical spondent.
violation did not invalidate board's later action of
reopening hearirig and denying variance. West's LA�,zAR.A, Judge.
F.S.A. ��' 286.011. The petitioners, the Board of County Commis-
sioners of Sarasota County (the Board) and Sarasota
j�l Zonfng and �lanning 414 �Y6�6 �ounty (t'�e County;, se�k certiorari review of a final
order of the circuit court acting in its review cupacity
414 7,oning and Planning
quushing th� Loar�'s denia? of a variance to the re-
414X Judicia? Revie�� or Relie_f sp:,nden±. VVe have ju�is�ict�on. FIa.R.Apa.P.
� ? 4X�C� Scope cf R�view
9,0 ��1{Ul(?)i�), �Ne quash the orderbecause the circuit
414���1 In General ��=��' �°"iate�' from the essential requirPments of the
— ia�a i:� ci�terniinui tkat LI�e �oar�'s de:�ial cvas of no
414k1fi26 lc. Variazic�s ar.d exceptions �
force �nd afrect �nd in a 1 in at� incorreci standar�i
_n �er:erai_. Nlost `it�ci Cases p �' y -�
��f re°!��,cv
("roi���erl�- 4;4?�6C'7)
�t� ��r�iG�i,?" Of Ini93� ii e a�Sp�J21G�cPt SOUoi?t �`i3i_
d?�"�Rdi� : I�.L� a' ��� �����5
iance fr�m the Boarri to co:.st: acr, a home or a narccl
oF 1_au��l �c>>er,.ed by the Co�.ity'; �'oastul ��tb��k
=r i'� �OTllil€? d�1_(j �IYlTL11"1,�� t}I'(�1':?�T'.CE'.: �.,3C`u�.";:)t�: �.O:l^�}' Fl�., �:'CilTiailCP. 7�-�?
4 i�;� Jurlicial Revie�.v o=• Rcliei �as a;ner.dea by t�rdu�ance 86-�4) (1986). Un��er tre
u 14 ��1 Se;e�3e of �ev:ew od:�i:r�.1c�, a'_1 ��ou�:r�zction and excavation seawa,� of
414X�C�; �uesti�ns of Fa�t a:ixec lirie along the Gulf cf i�Iexico is �rohit�ite�.
414k1704 k. Variances and exceptiens. T:?e- orj°cti�� of the c;idinance is to ��roteci the
Mosi Cited Lases Coun.y's �ninco�orated c�asta? areas d�rectly ex-
(Formerly 414k709) ��s�d to tr,e Gu:i of:��exic� fron7 e,osioa ai�d r`locuin�
by e�tabiis_�irg a"Gnlf ?3each Setback L,ir.e'' b�yer�c?
�r, c,�rt�n� ar review �f b�arc', oi c.�unty crn;�mis� ��hich constractioi� and excavation may no� occur. Id.
s:io�ier'� ��ecision Co �lcriy pro�crty uwrer �driaai�e at ,'�' 1.2. The Boa:d, however, has the discretion to
OO 2013 Thcroson Reuters. No rlaim to Orig. US Gnv. V�Jorks.
Page 4
658 So.2d 1069, 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1538
(Cite as: 658 So.2d 1069)
grant a variance and permit construction within this taining a variance had not been met and the granting
protected area if, after a duly noticed public hearing, it of a variance would conflict with the objectives of the
determines that: ordinance.
the strict enforcement of the provisions of this or- FN1. The Department's wrritten analysis
dinance would impose an unreasonable hardship recommending denial was also before the
and such variance will not adversely affect vegeta- Board.
tion, sand dunes or other beach stabilizing features,
nor be in substantial conflict with tre attairunent of Although the respondent generally disputed the
the purposes of this ordinance. findings of the Department, his main focus, through
his attorney, was that a denial would result in a dep-
Id, at § 4.1. rivation of all economic *1071 use of the property. He
also questioned the propriety of denying a variance
If the Board approves a variance, it can only grant when property to the immediate south, as well as other
"the minimum variance necessary to perm.it reasona- parcels in the vicinity, had been grante� variances.
ble use of the property." Id. Furthermore, such a var-
iance "shall not be modiiied or ternunated without At the conclusion of the second public hearing,
notice and an opportunity to be heard on the part of the the Board voted three to two to approve the variance.
person to whom the variance has been issued." Id. It then recessed for five minutes. Upon the Board's
retum to consider an urselated r:ia±ter in which re-
The Board considered the respondent's request for spondent's attorney was also involved, one of the
a variance at two properly noticed public hearings, Board's �em�ers, who hs� voted in favor of the var-
with the County's Natural Resources Department (the iance, announced that he had ha� z"lapse ef can-
Department) recommending denial of the variance. sciousness" in casting hi� vote, indicating th�t he
The I3epartineni s reasons for de�ial were presented �ought hP �vas vating to d�ry the variance. As a
by its manager, who was accepted as an expert without consequence, lie made a�etio� to reopen tl hearing,
objectio:�. He testified tha± the area in question, be- which the Board unanim:�usly passe�i. After receiving
cause of its low-l;�ir� nature, was subject to frequent �rther p�ese:�tatior.s �iom tl �eparTment and the
in�ndation � aver��asr, assoiiat�� wi;h stcn� activ- respondent, th� �oard voted t�'�ee to t�x�o to d�ny the
ity ar.d th�t such had �ccurre� c�n se��Pn diffsrent oc- variance.
c�sions sir_ce Sentember of 149e. Because of this fa�t,
he stated the_re �vas a re�s�:�aNle exp�cta#?on that a Quite na>ura?'y, res�onderxt's atkorney objected to
home cons�:�:cted ar. the qrcper`iy :��oul� be damaged this procedure ind cu�siicr�ed w�hether over the recess
by stoim-wave activity. iie �31se testified that the the B�ard membeis had privately �liscussed substan-
�;roperiy extsbi�s 4i t�L�d cf s!�crd?ine ero�ioii and that tive issues invnlving ��is clialit's Y���iCSt for a���riance,
the shcrel�ie iti this vici is Erodi� aC the rate of as well as reopening f�e .�earing, tl�ius suggestir.g a
three t� f�ar feet a year and ha� in fact retreated possible violation of Flurida's "Gcrvernment in the
l�ndwa.rd as much as fifty-ei�rt feet �etween June of Sunshine La�;�." See fi 2�6.011, F1a.Stat. (1993j. The
1987 and August of 1�93. He also relate� that con- Board mern�er wi3o chan�ed his ve�e repiied by �e�
sr.raction or t�-�is lar_d would impede the stabilizing counting that all he di� was ask sneEhPr member to
function of existii;g sand dunes and associated vege- clarify procedurally w�at transpired ir� tarxns of whose
tation. Thus, he conclud�d that th� criteria for ob- motion was on the floor to '�e voted cn. He further
�O 2013 Thomsen Reuters. N� Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 5
658 So.2d 1069, 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1538
(Cite as: 658 So.2d 1069)
related that after he determined he had misunderstood process and applied the correct law." Ec�ucation Dev.
what he was voting on, he immediately notified re- Ct�_. ti�. Cit�; of l�!est Palnz Becach Zoni�� Bc�. oj
spondent's attorney of this fact and advised him of his A�pc��ls 541 So.2d 106, 108 (FIa.1989) (quoting Ci�
intent to have the Board reconsider the matter. Re- �Deer iel�l Beac{i r. Vrcillant 419 So.2d 624, 626
spondent's attorney accepted these representations. F1a.1982 ). Although we reject the contention that the
circuit court failed to afford procedural due process,
The respondent later filed a five-count complaint we do agree that it applied the incorrect law in over-
in circuit court. Count I sought certiorari review of the ��ng the Board's ultimate denial of the variance.
Board's denial of his variance. Counts II-V sough± a
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and compen- 2 3 4 We first address the propriety of the
sation based on a"takings" theory. Board's reopening the public hearing to reconsider its
vote within minutes after it approved respondent's
After a hearing on count I, the circuit court variance. A basic rule of parliamentary law is that
granted certiorari and ente�ed a partial final judgm�nt "[u]nless some right of a thlird persen ir.tervenes, all
quashing the Board's denial of the respondent's vari- deliberative bodies have a right to reconsider their
ance. It cietermined that the Board "de�arted irom prcceedings during their session, as often as they tl:inl:
the essential requirements of law and violated [re- proper, when not otherwise provided by law, and it is
spondent's] procedural due process rights by open;ng the final result only which is to be regarde� as the
another public hearing on the previously approved thing *fl072 done." 67A C.J.S. Parliamentary Law § 9
variance, requesting and hearing new evidence, and (197�j; see also 59 Am.Jur.2d Pu��licamentu»� La�r �
the� votiug to deny the previously ap��°ovecl varianee, 15 �1987�; Te folon �_. ZoninQ Bcl.��4ppec�l� c To1:�r:
all without providing notice as required by Iaw." The of ?lai�zvzlle. 155 Conn. 558, 236 A.2d 96 ( i 9671
circuit court thus concluded that the deniai was "irn- (s�atir.g same rule) Otu 1 lorida Supi C;��u� i ree-
proper, invalid, nnll and oi tio force an� effect." It a1s� ����iir: �l this r�i�linlcnta��y priucipte lon� ago �y statinb
ruled that strict enforcement of the o:dir.ance imposed that "[<)ll del;hef <�ti��e bo�lie.�. ��ni�in��, rhei,� ;ession,
�n unreaconable hardship c�n ±h° respon�°rt �ecauce have a ii�iii ta recousi�ier their �r�ceeciii�gs as ehcy
�N?thout +he varianc� he had no rtiasor_�b1_e, h�r�fcial, decm proper, ���I�en uot otiler�:vise provideci 1,y la��
cr economi�ally viable use of tl:e r�r���er�� "F��rucn �ii��-1 it is tlie tins�l result only wllich is I-o be reba;cie�i as
vV'OLtli� C011fitl�l!te a COIT1p�iiS�itilZ t�k�P.�;.�' �+��r',i?iTFt;�tr�t 1�1F I�lLriQ C�OI1C,'" �Y'Li?V 0i"il L'. �?i�itl"?SL_6� � 13. � i_5`:,
ly, rio�,-ever r.�?e �irc�it court ne�er �nde��ol:, �;� ��n- 59 So. 953 9h9�191??. Gencr�lly. hotiaever, an es-
r15�fical rev�ew of ��1 tl B�a�ri's ders�? oi tb� ��».tiEil rec�uireinent t��r rec�n�i�ieration is fhat the
S/a''1uIlC� ��J�S Slipp02'f�f� �3y S'u}J�??riYl�i, Gq t�d��rs ii70hciil i_�) icCUlifi(C��Jf I)�� Ii11C3C ��V n1iZ ti�'f1G �C;tzC� C;'?i�
EVI�?Tl��. t11€ 111c`1)OI'1Ly rSI'i L11� 111Uf17ll lU i?C CCGU11511@�'r[j, .���:G17_
er.�oon i�. Staie e.x Yel_GY� ��t _138 310 10 � So.
FN?. '1_'�e proceeli�€s �s ro c��inT6 �I-V �,f 134 � i925�.
resp�ndent's c,c_�mplaint n��v� i�eer sta;�ed
pending our review of the circuit's rili*:g or_ In this case, the Foard`s reconsideration of the
count 1. grani of the variance cieariy satisfed ti�e e�sentiai
requirements of pariiar�ientary law. First, given the
�j 1?; P8V1eWlllg thP Cll'C�alf COU'`i�E: CT`�e] U12�Pi• S]ll)I'f -�Fri�tl1 Of CiiTl�'081ZxI0P7? t`�i8 tW0 �%(�T�S, It WCJt�l� ��
rutz 9.030tb}(� um io car�cl t��at the officia] cha��6e �i
)(B j, ou� standa�d is t� detennine
"whether the ci:cuit court afforded procedu: a: �ae mind was �etrimental to any rights the respondent may
have acquired by vii of ttie first vote. See, e.g.,
C�� 2013 T'hemson Reuters: No Claim to Orio. US Gov. �'��or?cs.
Page 6
658 So.2d 1069, 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1538
(Cite as: 658 So.2d 1069)
Sharrolv L'. Cllti of Daniu 83 So?d 274 (F1a.1955). during the recess, such a violation did not invalidate
Second, the Board member who moved to reconsider the Board's later action. See Yar�b�°ou�h i�. YocrnQ 462
was part of the initial majority. So.2d 515 (Fla. lst DCA 1985).
j51 More important, the Board clearly afforded We conclude therefore, that the Board acted in
the respondent all of the essential requirements of due clear accord with the law in reconsidering and then
process before it reached a final decision. U�on changing its vcte approvuig the variance and, in doing
learning of his mistake, the Board member who voted so, did not deprive the respondent of procedural due
erroneous?y immediately notified respondent's coun- process nor violate the "Sanshine Law" or the ordi-
sel that he intended to seek reconsideration of the nance. Accordingly, the circuit court departed from
granting of the variance. Then, after the hearing was the essential requirements of the law in declaring the
reopened, the Board gave respondent's counsel ample Board's subsequent denial of the variance invalid.
opporiunity to be heard and to voice his objections
after reseiving the Department's supplemental �;1 WP ;�I,sn c�nt•lnde tl��<lt i1�i� circr�i± court em-
presentation. See Dc�lvson v. Sacicla, 608 So,2d 806 pluyLCl an incorre:;t sla:i�lai°�1 of revir,w br lunitiu�, its
Fla.1992 . I��foreover, tr�e Board also strictly com- ��,�,i�i��er<itu�u tc� tlle is;;ue ��i �a,�11�,ihec tlie dciiial o(�tlie
plied with the provisions of the ordinance by not ter- v.�ri�uia�� �;;r>iild iiup�>:�;c ai; unrcaso��able llar��sl�ip o�i
minatir_g the �ariance until a mation to that effect had respondet�r rr, t}ie e�:tent it �t�ould consiitut� n com-
been made and the respondent was given an oppor- � taking ol� ltis propea�ty, "l��h�l was r�c7t the ap-
tunity to be heard. , •
� i opriat� issue for it to consider on certiorari rcvic�w in
tlii� t;��se, lnsteacl, the crrctril c�urt should liave re-
L6� Pinallv, with respect to any discussions be- �ic�ue<i the evidence beFore rhe Board and deteiYizinad
tween the Board merrtbers durin� the recess, we con- whether ihere �v1s st�hstaniial, competent r�ii-
clu�ie froin this record tiiat such discussions did not cicnce��1073 to suppor� it� cleiiial ��f responde��t's re-
vioiate seetion 2�6.011, which provides ir. part that ques� for a variance, iii li�ht oC all the ceiteria of lhe
"[alll :r°etin.gs cf �ny bozrd cr e�mm_iss?on .., of any �rdin�!��ce. ;15 r}�f� si�preme court 11as »oted:
co�n�y ... at , ,�;luch ofiicial acts are to �e tak�n are
dec]are:; t�� '� � puti;lic Ln�etir�gs ... a�d no ... farr�:al TIZe �Itie:,(i�iii is nor whe�her, lipon , e��iew nf the
�Ct1pli S�1%:I] ;?E G�J?T3i:'ie*":.:j tlFi1C�111�T �;XCZ�t 3S �1ke11 G5' 4.Vt;��:?C� ir� t)lE' .:,:,J:°C�, ;.I:LI'C: �;X�SYS �Utitil�tlllLul
:r�acie a`s s,i�:,r� Tt�e.�.ng.>' - "l�e _e���? is clear tha[ th� c��mpeleizt 2�%ider to support n�osition rorttruiy
to�ic of ecmrersa:i:�� bet�.�een �ertairs B��ard m: m��ers �� Ulril reaclleci by the a�eiicy. Instead, tlic ci�
���a4 rl?e �r����e�.ura� c� p� �ce�irg il.e taicing courr shoiilcl review tli� factual determination m�cle
�f ;:he ri3s� vc_;r� ar.-.d noi th° �ubssar�t;ve irier�cs os re- l.,y ttle ag; nr,y an<1 de�ei�mine �vlirtia� r rhei i� Si,b-
3�JOIl,IeT.lt�R r?Cjl!0S± �G"1 3 V�2'1$IlCe� $ fdCt W�'liCll t�"1(: ;;[�llttl2?I CUIl1��f:t�.i! :Vl..{CI'-C� LO :>UjJpOII I.�'.0 �.�Z11GV�9
:-F-;po:�c?ent`s at�:crr�ey coi,ceded befo�e the ��ard. cr�ni;lu�ic���
There is ;bsolur,ely no e.v�c_te�ice suggesting that the
Board agreed in secret during the recess to reconsider �, ., � C�,. Iozc. �41 So 2d at 107-10�
_ C�i�urti,�7r _ � � ---
a?id cie�iy t.`rie ?•es�ondeni`s v�riance and then per��ne- ru�tin Cit �� �� �
toriiy ratified 'cnis decision at the public hearing held a �� � L°� 1 "- es± �c!l;�? Bc.rclz Zoraiy�a Bc . of A�
�als i�. E�z'ircatior. De��. Ci�:, Inc., 50�'r So?d 1385,
fPiv tn�nuze: lat�?�. :See T�,lar i�. Sch B d. �_/,i_ierti. ��,
-- — 3� o iFl>,. 4tL L�� A� 9°�7) (emphasis in ��riginal).
Cc�� ?G ��c,.2d �+27 "rla, i9z� 1�. ivloreovPr, to t�i� �cc.ar��in�l;, we r�lust �•emand �nis mat�er� to the circuit
extent there was a technical violation of the statute by ��urt with dir�cticns tha± it redeterrr.ine the appropri-
virtue oi a privaie aiscussioti among Boa��d rnembers
O 20l 3 Thomson Reuters. IaTO Claim te Orig. US Crov. lxlorl��.
Page 7
658 So.2d 1069, 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1538
(Cite as: 658 So.2d 1069)
ateness of the Board's denial using the correct stand-
ard.
We, therefore, grant certiorari, quash the circuit
court's order, and remand with directions that it review
the record of the proceedings before the Board and
determine whether there exists substantial, competent
evidence to support the denial of respondent's vari-
ance. In doing so, however, ��ve emprasize that nothing
in this opinion should be construed as indicating
whether such evidence does or does not exist because
that is beyond the reach of our certiorari jurisdiction in
this case. See Gomes i�. Citv of St. Petersbur� 550
So.2d 7(Fla. 2d DCA 1�89).
Certiorari granted, order quashed, and cause re-
manded with directions.
RYDER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
F1a.App. 2 Dist.,1995.
Board of County Com'rs of Sarasota County v. Web-
ber
658 So.2d 1069, 20 FIa. I,. WeeklyD1538
END �JF DOCUM�NT
�O 2013 Thamson Reuters. No C1aim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Westlaw..
Page 1
45 So.3d 7, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D1467
(Cite as: 45 So.3d 7)
H Zoning and Planning 414 �1459
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 414 Zoning and Planning
Fifth District. 414VIII Permi*.s, Certificates, and Approvals
CARILLON COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL, etc., et 414VIII(C) Effect of Determination of Per-
al., Petitioners, mits, Certificates, or Approvals; Revocation
�, 414k1454 Revocation or Modification
SEMINOLE COUNTY, Florida, AHG Group, LLC., 414k1459 k. Maps, plats, or plans; sub-
et al., Respondents. divisions. Most Cited Cases
No. SD09-3789. Board of county commissioners afforded peti-
July 2, 2010. tioners procedural due process, even though board did
Rehearing Denied Oct. 6, 2010. not allow petitioners to cross examine witnesses at
ruasfl juciicial hearing on amendment to planned unit
Baekground: Residential association sought judicial development, v✓here petiiianers were partici�ants, but
review of board of county commissioners' decision Were not parties to the proceedings, and were not
amending planned unit development. The Circuit being deprived of the use of their property, whereas
Court, Seminole County, upheld the dacision of the ��rt��s to the proceedirg had a competling interest in
board, and association petitioned for certierari review. deveioping the property in question, and board per-
mitted participants ta direct questions to the board,
which in turn were addressed to appropriate individ-
I�oldin�: The District Court of Appeal held that board
uals. U.�.C.E1. Const.Amend. 14
afforded assoc?ation procedival ciue procPss.
Petiti.on �enied.
j2�, Cos�stitutional Law 92 °�3�79
�2 C:o��s�it�zticnal L�v✓
�Nest Headnotes
92:�XVIi Due Process
92.XX'v"II(B) �rotections Provir'.ed and �ep-
j� ����ts�i�atflonal Law S2 ���(�5�6 rivaiicns :'rotubited in General
92k,387g No±ice and Hea.�ing
�2 Constitutional La�v 92k3879 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
9%XXVI Due Process
92XXVII(G) P�rticular Issues and AF�lica- The core of due process �s the right to notice and
tions an oppo�tuniry to be heard. U.S.C.A_ronst.Ari�nd.
92XXVII(G)3 Property in Generai 14
92k4091 Zoning and Land Use
92k4096 k. Proceedings anci retrievv. ll£ I.aw� 92 ��3865
Most Cited Cases
92 Constitutianal Law
�O 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 2
45 So.3d 7, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D1467
(Cite as: 45 So.3d 7)
92XXVII Due Process and balancing. Most Cited Cases
92XXVII(B) Protections Provided and Dep-
rivations Prohibited in General The extent of procedural due process protection
92k3865 k. In general. Most Cited Cases varies with the character of the interest and nature of
the proceeding involved. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.
When assessing whether or not a violation of due
process has occurred the court must first decide � Constitutional Law 92 C�3875
whether the complaining party has been deprived of a
constitutionally protected liberty or property interest; 92 Constitutional Law
absent such a deprivation there can be no denial of due 92XXVII Due Process
process. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. 92XXVII(B) Protections Provided and Dep-
rivations Prohibited in General
,j4] Constitutional Law 92 �386? 9^k3875 k. ractors considered; flexibility
and balancing. Most Cited Cases
92 Constitutional Law
92XXVII Due Process There is no single unchanging test which may be
92XXVII(B 1 Frotections Frovided and Dep- applied to determine whether the requirements of
rivations Prohibited in General procedural due process have been met; courts instead
92k3867 k. Procedural due process in gen- consider the facts of the particular ca�e to determine
eral. Most Cited Cases whether the parties have been accorded that which the
state and federal constitutions demand. U.S.C.A.
Constitutional Law 9� �3875 Consi.Amend. 14 .
92 Constitutional Lav�l L1 �o�s±itutional La�v 92 °�402?
92 XXVII Dae Process
92XXVII(E� Protections Provided and Dep- 92 Constitution«I La��
rivations �r�hicited in u¢ner�.l 92XXVII �iie Prccess
92k3875 k. F�ctc�rs �onsidered, flexibility 9?X�V1 r�c�minist�ativ� �;genc?es and
and balancing. Nlost Cited Cases Proceedings in Gener�!
92k4027 k. He4rings �nd adjudications.
Dae procRss ?s a fle�i�le concepi and requires Niost Cit�d C:ase;
only that the prc,ceeding be essential?y f�ir. U.S.C.A.
Const.Elm�nd. 14. When a lyin F'he eneral due roc�ss rinci les
PP €, �= g A- P P
to th; speciiic c�ntext of quasi-ji�.c_iicial adr�ainistrative
jSJ Can�f:iturionaB Laav �� �3875 hearings, i� is important to disti�gu�sh between parties
and partic?pants; the ex_tent of procedural due process
92 �'�nstitutional Law afforded to a�arty in a quasi judicial hearing is not as
92XXVII Due Process great as that afforded to a party in a full ju�licial
92�Xt'I: 3 Protevti�ns Provideci and Dep- -�earing. U.S.C.A. Const.�mend_I4.
rivaiicns Prohibited in �ener�l
92k3875 k Factors �onsidered; flexibility j� Constitutional Law 42 °�38?9
�O 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 3
45 So.3d 7, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D1467
(Cite as: 45 So.3d 7)
University of Central Florida Foundations, Inc.
92 Constitutional Law
92XXVII Due Process *9 PER CUR:AM.
92XXVII(B) Protections Provided an� Dep- Petitione:s, Carillon Community Residentia?
rivations Prohibited in General Association, Inc., and Ken Hofer, its President, seek
92k3878 Notice and Hearing second-tier certiorari review of a circuit court order
92k3879 k. In general. Most Cited Cases upr.olding the approval by the Seminole Cour�ty Board
of County Commissioners (`BCC") of �u� a,neiiclmint
Because t�ie extent of procedural due process af- to ihe C'ariUon 1'I,�nned Uilit Dcv:;lupn�eiYt ("C:arillun
forded to a party in a quasi judicial hearing is not as PU�7") "I he au�ienciment �llows a miYed-use devel-
great as that afforded to a party in a full judicial t�P inciiictiilg a four-st��ry 60� bed Univer,ity of
hearing, such hearings are not controlled by strict rules ��iitral 1'loricta ;ludf:nt housizig cornplex, �o be bziilt
of evidence and procedure. U.S.C.A. Co�ist.Amend. >>�i t�vo parce(� ot� laud adjacent to Petitioners' subdi-
14. visio�l. Based upon our limited scope of revie��v, �;���
�-��nclude ihat the circuit court afti�rded Petiti��ners
j�, Constittateonal b.aw 92 �40�7 �'���'���i��'<"�I duc process a��d clyd i�ot dc�,,�rt tioin the
��ss�°nii�il r�c�u�r��me��ts ol�la��v. StateFarn? Fla_Ins. Co_
i�. Lo; er�o, 959 So.2d 393 (Fla. Sth DCA 2007;. .'�c-
92 Constitutional Law cordingly, we deny their petition.
92XXVII Due Process
9?XXVII(F) Admiiiistrative Agencies and
Proceedings in General
f i 1(�i� �� �i/e write furfher to uddress on�. i�GUe
92k�027 k. Hearings and adjudications. ��lii�h ii��ri�� di;r,�;s,;i�;�t, �l�lii�h is tiv1���he, Petirioncrs
Most Cited Cas es w�•r� tieal�crl �I_�ie pro��ess ��lien llle B('C deiiied d�cir
re��uest i-�� crnss �examine u�itnesses at the qua-
�i-jndicial he,irini� iii whicl� tlie an��eud�uc;�i( was ,,r-
Da� pYocess requires that a party to a c��ia- ��; 'The "cnre" t�f dne process is the ri�Lt to n� r��e
si judicial hearing, by virtue o* its direct int�.est t�at azid a�i oppu� �ui�ity le be liazr�. ! u� �;i�:��_ �. L�;�:c /�_son�
wiil be �ifected by �fiici�I aczion, :��ust be ��bi_e tc '_L� U.S. 26= Ig S.Ct. i53, l;>9 �_Eci.Zd 6�5 14'��;
1 -�.
�SIE:Se?lt �V?CI?IlC�', GI'USS�PX1I�lli'_f. `vV}trc;StiE;S �il�u re- S°C' [dlS'O !�!lrlt/]vbVS I'. E�C�''d•'1F�P 4�=� �� � _i1�i +t� ..!�[.
iniormed of a11 the facts upon which ihe comrnission ¢03 47 �.Ed.2d to (1G?L1 �Ulicn �,s;essing �vlietf�L�•
acts. li.S.C.A. Coilst.Amend_ �4. �; i��,t a s�?olriti��i cf clu�� pl�oc�ss l�as occu�•e� "Tl?�
�;1.'L<3'L i?1�1�i. i I"!'�i (��k'(`1({f' µ-]1f.1��"!�1' i�le t't)tilf??rlllll? �'a�;i�'.� ',
*8 David �1. Tneriac�, S, i rent_Spain, a.��� i_�sii� I;_ ;la� lx;ei� clt�pri��e�l o( a cu�islitulioilall� pzt,iec;tel iit� �
Bi son, of The,ziaque � S�;ail, T�Iiaha,:se�; tor P�ti- erty or prc�periv int�erest, �1b�<al! sucl� _� deprivatitu,
tioners. ifier�, c<�n h�- nu �lc�,ial c�Cduc l�r��c�tis." Ec:�;;or.z?._L?e,�.
�_ci� ;. o l�ade Coc.rn - L2c. ;�. S�;e���ac,'r. ?3 % F_�d 9`2.
�— ----� --- - ,
Robert A. McMillati, County Attorney, and Kathleen 953-54 � l 1 th Cir.1986).
rurey-Tran, Assistant County r�t±orney, �anford, ior
RespondentSeminoleCounty. f?]fSl(ti� nne pr�ces� is � flexih!e c�c�ncept and
reyuirz� viily that tfic, pi�>c�:idiii� I�� ",;sr_:cn�iu.uy �aii�."
1�1:;,t?ael V. Elsbei_�y and : 'ane+. - -:�1. _: ��rt,�P;, of See Gilber! i. Hnrr:ccr, s?0 !T S���%4, �_I� �.C�. 180;,
Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed P.A., 138 L.Ed.2d 120 (1997) (recognizing that "it is nnw
Orlando, for Respondents AHG Greup LLC an�i well-established that `clue process unlike some lega?
��� 2013 "Thomson Reuter�. No Claim *o Orig. LJS Ucv. �Norks.
Page 4
45 So.3d 7, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D1467
(Cite as: 45 So.3d 7)
rules is not a technical conception with a fixed eontent pnrt�� in a Full judicial Ile�iriiig. Seminole Entertcain-
unrelated to time, place and circumstances"') (quoting me��t, Inc. 1�. Citv o Casselbei-�r �,_811 So.2d 693, 696
Ca eteriu aJad Rest�cur�ant Worlcers UjaioJZ, Loccrl 473, (Fla. Sth DCA 2001� (" Senzinole I"); see also Hcadlev
AFL-CIO v. �I�IcElron, 367 U.S. 886. 81 S.Ct. 1743, 6 i�_De�rrtnaent o Aclmi�2isti�rrtion., 411 So.2d 184, 187
L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961)). The extent of procedural due Fla.1982 .('onsec{iGCntly. such heariugs ar�° n�>t con-
proeess protection varies with the charaeter of the irolfeti by •;trict ru1��s ot` evi�lenc� inid prac;edure.
interest and nature of the proceeding involved. There Seminole ! at 696.
is, therefore, no single unchanging test which may be
applied to determine whether the requirements of �9� Tlevertheless, a party m a c�t�asi-jndicial
procedural due process have been met. Courts instead hearii�g, by vii uf its direct i��tei•est tliat titi�ill be
consic�er the f�cts of the particular case to determine ai�Fected by ofll�ial acti��n, '�`mu,t be �ble to present
whether the parties have been accorded that which the e��idei�ce, cro.tis-�xami�ie wituesses, aiid t�c int<�ruied
state and federal constitutions demand. Hcrciler, 4ll �,��� ,�II il��_� far,��, i���un ��ahich r6e c;�,nul�i�,�ion aci5,"
So2d at 187; see also, Clel�eland Bcl. of Educ. v_. Kupl�e i�. Or•aiz�E� Coerntv, 838 So.2d 598, 599 (Fla. Sth
Locsclermill, 470 U.S. 532, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed2d DCA 2003) (citing Lee C ounh% v. Sunbelt Ectatities I I
494 (198� (citing Boddin i�. Connecticut, 4G1 U.S. Lt��. °urtiae;�ship, 619 So.2d 9SE, (Fla. 2d D�A 1993�).
371, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971� ("[t]he For example, in Kunl�e this court held that a farmer
formality and procedural requisites for the hearing can �vho h: d been cited for operating an unautharize�
vary, depending upon the importance of the interests junkyard and was facing daily fines, was entitled to
invcl��ed and the nati:re of the subsequent proceed- present witnesses in his defense as part oi his basic
zn�s•"»• r:ght 'o �e hea:d before a property right was taken
irom nim. .See ��so Seminole I (nolding that p�rty
Tl�e United Stdtes Supreme Court has held that facing business license revecatian was denied right to
t�ie�e are ±hree 3:stir.ct factors to consider in the LTOJS'G' ��vitr.esszs agai�st itl.
a�a�y�is of whethei the due process accord�,d in any
proee�ding was constitutionally sufficient: I) tne t�fteiatimes_ liowe�ve��, ,ucli cluasi-ii;dicias h�ar-
a,:iv�te inte:esz that w;ll be affected by i�e effieial i �,�� � �t.rens by r��o�e than j�..st ti�e pariics. 'l�ltey
actie:�; 21 tt�e ris� o� a�� error-eous ��,priv��tic�n cf st�c;1 ui �� ; ,��� to ±I�c. pl.hlic. lu Uir. case �i ����ouind 1?ear-
�
�:rte�E,�i t:�ru��ii the �rocedure� useu; and �) the i i��:iel�boriiig land��tivners m3y atteird and ��vant ,.o
probahlP vwh�e �f �r_y� of 2ddi±ional ar substit�ite be heaa�d ��❑ _i proposeci �oiiing cliange to <i �ie<<rl;y
pmeeclural safeguards. tl%Iatl?���vs v. ElrlYiclae, 424 U.S. �������, ni�r eouF�t has prei�iotisly statecl tl�a� "[a]
? 19. 3�+ 3; ��-, S.�:t, �"3.?? L Ld.�_a 18 1970 .'I'he ���
_ ��_ _ �—�1 �;a,•iiG p3.�t =;i a ��±a�i-,u E�ro�vedi.i� is cl.a:iv
gove��.,frE,;t'� �n��.rest, uicivaing the functi�n i_r�valvec� �„�itl,:d tc� somc. measure of du� �.7roc�°ss .�. 11ie i,.�.�nc
and i'Ze nscai and administrative burdens tnat the c�f �vl�rit prz�cess is cltie cl�;pe�i�, �m the lua�c±i��n oi'the
��ditiosi�l ��- su�sti�zte proced�iral reauii•ein�nt.s ��roceedin��: .�s ���E,II <�s the uattire oi� �hc; int��rests ��f-
ytIOU�C: V'1�t:�1i �r101'ti(� flISO l�F' CO11S?Ci�l"eCt. iC�. �i;l;l�:C�. ' V�CIi:_'_ �P3�',5'. �'()i�i�. 1_�Of�132S'pT2_�JV �C,?i� I
1U3�, iO39 (Fia_Sth DC�12003�.
i_7j[�l ��''rer� applyin� t1le�se �eneral aue process
p�inciple� t�� ih�: sper,iiic c�illext ol� ��10 c{ut�si ju�lici�tl PeYi±i�ners i.n.��n;7-ectly a�ssert ±hat Fl�rida ?au� re-
a�Jr��iriielraUv� !iea?�inds, it is importan� t� distin�u�sh �i tli,�i ��ll puriici��crn�.�� in qua�i-�_ju�licial p��oc�e�3-
l�ei�vec;n parlics �inrl ��rtici��u�ts. "lhe ex[enr oP ��r��- ing� �e al�o���ed to r��oss-erau�ine witness�s. l�lo�idn
cedural due proce,s aFti�rded lo a party i�i <i qua- la�v has no such require�iient. [n siGpport of nc�ir a.�-
si-jucticial licaii�ib is iiot as breat as that afforded lo a s��,ti�,n 1'et�tiuiiei°s ciCe several cascs appcaiilg lo
�O 201? Thomson Reu?ers. No Claim to O:ig. US Gov. Works.
Page 5
45 So.3d 7, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D1467
(Cite as: 45 So.3d 7)
reyui��c cross-.ex�mination in quasi-jiidicial proceed- whether the underlying administrative pro-
inns. lIo���e��e��, a cl��se readizlg of th���e cases i�eveals ceedings were le�islative or quasi-judicial in
that they cannot supp�r� suc}i a bi�oail proposi�ion. nature. In making those determinations, the
courts in both cases noted that local ordi-
First, manv c��es as�erted hy PPtitioners as nances expressly afforded "interested par-
bro��dly atf�>> thc ri�=1�t ��1� cross�-esa,iiin�ltio�i in ties" the right to cross-examine witnesses in
��iasi-judiciai proce�aiugs uivolv�;d pai°ties, ilot a quasi-judie�al hearing. N� such ordinance
l,arti�ipant;. Thus, any effort to extend application of exists in this case.
such due process protectior�s tc partieipants is beyond
the scope of the facts in those cases. See, e.g., Kupke [P]etitioners contend the city council wrongfully
(farmer facing fines for unauthorized use of property); refused to allow them the opporiunity to
Seminole_ 1 (business licensee facing license revoca- "cross-examine" a particular Daily Bread repre-
tion); Sunbelt E�ities (property owner applying for sentative at the July 14th public hearing. Such ar-
rezoning); Bd. of Cota��iv Con��za5�s ai Hillsboj•ou� gument apparently arises from un over�road and
Coatntv 1-. Casa Dei-cloprne�zt Ltd., 332 So.2d 651 erroneous interpretation of Jennina.�� v. D«de
�Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (devel�per applying ior water and Cocrnry, 589 So.2d 133 �(Fia. 3d DCA 1991 i. fii
sewer service); Haj•f•is v. Geff' ? 5? So.2d 542 �Fl�. lst '�,� ������� thc couct iloted tliaf the ��uality nf �iue
DCA 1963) (landowners directly SaLject to Loning pr��ee;s a��qt�;re<1 i��i Ihe ��na;i-,jiic�ieia! zc,i�in� pro-
change). ccccliiiK is not the same as that to which a party lo a
liill �ii�licial hearin� is �:ntitle;l. �t�hc cou�i �tated "a
Petiti�ners cite three cases which involve ad- qi���si-,jt�clic-i<�i hc�ir <„enersilly i;�;��.�;; uasic tl��e
joining lanlowners and siate r_.ha± �asic notions of due procetis r�quire�ii�;nts if tlie parties ltav�; pi•o ci
process in a�u�si-,�ua�i�ia� hearing irclude f�e right to �otice ��F ri�c hcaring and an op����rt�ulity to be heard.
C�'OSS-f'Xc7T111I1e WltileS9e3. ,J�:?i7,Cl1aS 1'. 1%(tCIF CCG(!2 Ill yuasi-,j�dd'r�ia 7iiiilil� �i�(1(:r�ECili1�5 t(l� pa�'il�s
— '�------
589 So.2d i337 (Fla. Sc�. DC,A 1991); h'ir,t v, polk u!us! b�� �ible to prese��t �,�:i�c.!cc, crusd-examii�e
C�uf�tv �cl. c.f Co�a�n�'�� Co�� 578 S�2d 4?:� (Fl a, ��vituesses, and be inFornied t�F aU Ilie f�ct.s upc>n
, ,. r �tihir.l� rlle (�o�-c���inei�t a��e��cy) �i�;t=;".
2d DCA 195:1, C�rcrl Reef,�'ct;^serFie�_Lac. ti_. Bnv�ocw
Co.� 41U �e.��i 64�� _�_l�_1d ;���:� 19�32i. Ho�N�ever,
none of tlicse ��tsc� hc�lc3 fltat aii u�(jorrri��,�; lanrlm���iaer Thc `s�a�tics" refiFren��e�-1 in ,s�:cF� c�pinz�>> ;�,e the
f�as a due process right to iross-exai�line witnes,es i,i applicaiii an�l tlie ko�erilmeut ag•:;iicy. �i�::c .;ei�ungs
a quasi-,judicial rezoning hearing. �To rhe co�i�ra.y, �ie�cisi<�❑ <luc,5 n<,t in any �vzy, reco�i�i:��: a ri�ht oi:
✓:�!i�r,�j;��� sraees, in diei-u�,l il�e :: i l g���ieral �7r���ositi:,r l�eh<ilf {>t� �ili rreighbori�ig pi o�vners t��
that pur•[ies to quasi-jftc;i:Eal heari;��s °`:��;�.s! �e able cross-cxamiire any �i��d all individuals who may
to pr�sent eviclence, ���as�-exEzmine ���� �uid t,c �Pealc 'rrr �r a�ain��t t}�i? ��;ning ap}�lic�ti��n_ �!�'o
iirt��i�rierl ol` all il2e i�icts up��7 �rhi��ll tl�� c.v�niiiis�io�? recugiv�ze �uch .� ri�i�t un l>z;�ali� e1� all =�interested
ill;l,`;.'e F�il '{" 11EL? GjTC;.U� �U�`j�8 C4`Si1C��-.E-I' 1P- .S'�jZODI�E '.'. ��C:I'RO11.`�'� 11'ULI�I.1 LiC'il1P, < t)1(tl]�7P1'S�JIll(:, tllIVJ1C'.�l�V
Ci.ry ofMelbourne, case no. 92-12537-AP, Eighteenth ��ro��edr_�r<il ��igh�>>i��re 1���r I��cal ���>��e��ii�neiit bodies.
Judiciai Circait ��ourt, Brevard Cour.ty, correctiy
distinguisheci Jens?irr;s in addressing the same argu- Peti±iorers cite onc ci;cuit ;,�n�* �1eci�;en, Sor-
IT3elli � c'.�eC.� 11? i�11S Cu�°v. i�v Si�tQU: y'oYltO �CZYIC��'S f�0:"rBOYi�Y;F,'YS .-�SSOC;Cll70tZ, IYli:. t'. (.Z�?%
of Venice, 15 t la. i,. d�%eek:?y �upp. 8; 7(�la. :2in
FN1. In both Hirt anc� Corai RPef, the de- Cir.Ct.2008) as hol�ling that "neighboring landown-
termir.ative issues before the ccurts were ers" ��ere denied their �ue pro�ess right to
OO 20:3 Tt�ornson Renters. No Claii.l to Orig. TJS Go�'. Works.
Page 6
45 So.3d 7, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D1467
(Cite as: 45 So.3d 7)
cross-examine witnesses in a quasi-judicial zoning , ,l iini�sses. Finally, land use hearings are not in the
proceeding. This decision was not binding on the same f'orm as traditional adversarial hearings during
circuit court in this case. In addition, it does not stand which opposing parties are clearly delineated and
for the proposition asserted by Petitioners, as nowhere those entitled to cross-examine witnesses can be
does it describe the petitioners in that case as clearly identified. Rather, land u�e lieii� are
"neighboring landowners." It only describes them as public hc�riri�; s cluriu�� ���hic;h anv mcinber of the
residents �f Sorrento Ranches, but it is not elear p�ihlic 1�a5 a richt tr� p�u��ici}�a�e, nt the heTrine in
whether Sorrento Ranches was part of the "46-acre quesri�n. in addir.ion t� rhe witnesse� for �he de-
tract of land" subject to the proposed zoning change. velop�rs aiid the petitioue^rs, iwcn�y-livc con�uumity
Without knowing the petitioners' status in relation to iuember� �poke at the heanng. It w�wld be imprac-
the rezoning application, the decision offers no assis- tic;�l i�� �ri�_Int eacl� ini��rc�stecl E�a��ty the righk to
tance. cross-examine rhP «�itnesse� at such � hearing, es-
l�ccaall�� in libht ot� die Yacl �liat the BCC provides a
The com.mission's attorney deried the petitioners P�'����������� hy u�hicl� tlie �� itnesses e��n h� c�ues-
in that case an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses �'�"����
because they were not �arties. If we were to infer iror�l
that st�tement, that the petitioners were in fact Finding that the circ�.iit co��rt afforded the parties
neighboring lan�owners, as Petiticners in this case procedural due process and applied the cerrect law, «re
assert, we would conclude that the issue was wrongly deny the petition.
decided. Because the decision fails to apply tne
�v'atlie��vs factors, we do not lcnow what private inierest PETITION DENIED.
the resi�ents of Sorrento Ranches ha� that woulci have
entitled them the level of due process afforded by the �,.q�NACO, �.J., PALMEP. and LAWSOr1, 3J., con-
cow �.
cur.
in this case, the circu�t caurt a�plied the �or.
:14.lapp, 5 Dist.,20 i 0.
?av �y thought�lly ;;onsidering and appl�:��g the �, ., i , ., C
.�:rl�o:� C��:, snun�ty R�siden;.ia_ v. `er7;rai.e E_,:3i�r;iy
�'Irrt6�e����s factors. I� sta±ed: a.s C�.3�'7, 35 Pl�. L, Weekiy Dl�o7
[ti�l�zlc �i�����i;�1�1�� i1�r Pei.ilioi�iers' t��tjoti�me�ii ci� fn�ir
c,i�U OF L`OCu1l�iEN i
pro�e7 i��iii be i,�rl�acteci *12 r�y the actinn nf tn�
13CC, �hry are nui bc;nK Jepz �.vr:d of ll�e u�;e �; +�t?ei�
�rro�jcrty, �,vl�;;i�;ar;: ihe cic:v<°lc�}�ur,4 li�i��� a co�,i3e
lit�b i;�terr.:st in dr th�, ��rol3erfy n� cluc,ticn.
The ��isk of an er de�rivatic=i, i� lo��, ;' he,
Petitioners were ab?e to �r.sent th�yir u�i�ne�sF�.
Furthcrmoro, tivhile the RCC did ❑ot 7eni�it the
cro�ti-exdiniiiaiion, it cli�l �7erari� c���esti�tls to he di-
rcctc:cl t� the boai �vhich i�i turi7 woalcl adc?r��zs� t�iP
c�u�;nticn�s to Cl�e aPPf?�pri�ie iildividua(5. Thu�, whil�
ilie qt�esUoning i»i�hl iiot l�ave been tlle ior�ri tlie
Petilioi�ers preferred, t(iey were provided �vitli an
opportuniry to present questions to the developer's
�O 2013 Thon�son Reuters. No Claim to Qrig. tTS Gov. V�,'orks.
TAB 4 �
COMPETENT SU� STANTIAL
EVIDENCE
Westlaw.
Page 1
756 So.2d 166, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D727
(Cite as: 756 So.Brl fl66)
�
f�, Zonang and Planning 414 �fl626
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fourth District. 414 Zaning and Plan��ing
David K. SMITH, Petitioner, 414X Judicial Review or Relief
�• 414X�C Scope of Review
The CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, a political 41=�X(C)1 In General
subdivision of the State of Florida, Respondent. 414k1626 k. Variances and exceptions
in general. Most Cited Cases
No. 4D99-2378. (Formerly 414k607)
March 22, 2000.
�orcdng acd ��anning 414 �P704
�'1Ct1(?1? ij�li,`; 1lPUll���l't l;�l:lll��ti�'til;� <.i)tllilS! G)t)iliC� i)�
<�k�l-,cx�l`:' �ieu,,il ;;C �:.�� i<jnc��, fhe t�iiteenth Judicial 414 Zoning and Pianning
�:�rcuii �ouri, Paim Beach County, Edward Fine 414X Judicial Review or Relief
Moses Baker, Jr., and Peter D. Blanc, J., upheld de- 414X(C) Scope of Review
nial. Petition was filed for writ of certiorari. The Dis- �41dX(C)4 Questions ofFact
trict Court of Appeal, Warner, C.3., he1_d that the 41�}k1704 k. Variances anci ExcFr�tions.
�i;c�iit Court applied the con•ect staiidard ofreview. �Vlost'�itecl Cases
;Po:merly ?l�k?09) '
Petition denied.
Ci,•ct�ii court an re��iew of zonin� �oard o� ap-
West Headnotes ;�eats' �;ec;siot� to �eny a var�a��ce ap�;iecf tie coirict
r _,
.y�'a'a:3 -�5'ue C�C ieVlZ�%i' r3; • IlEell tJ �f{trlil I< <f�
j�� r�; �c�'h' a^:Il� �'Y'i;4.2�l1"E �`i�^� =�%Gl�tCie \V�� f�?11'1}' cieb�tR�'Jle ilri!� W:�S Si�p�O?'Lc,C� b�,�
�h�� cu:r�p�iet.i sab�ia��iiai ev:der.c�; ihe "fairly debata'�ie '
Si?�'aE�a�`f�, L"J:tS T10± �1'ESg�2I11iaT' �G t�if'. "SL1�SiiiililZi GOl?1-
��IAIlt °V1u�IICP," S!�.R',�iS�'�.
i 5 .�d�siinist=aii��e La��� anc? Pr°�cedure
1_���� Tuciicial RP3�iew of A.drrii�istrativ� t�eci-
�. "i�� 101111 lv(. ,�02'trL'iiSet? 3LiC� KeVill ��. �✓`�t�1iL': 'Jf
-ie�� _ _ _.
15AV�_4) In Ger.erai S::et�, I�a�:�is, ��ar�, Bat°ra & JorgensPn, Fal�r;_ Leach
i �P�1c58 � Fu�iher Review G�='��"��, ���= C�ztitioner.
i S.yk683 k. Scope. I�osi Cited Cases
Sonja ir�rig�i+.cn, ��;.sisiani l;ity fi±torn�y, `1�'est Pair�
1n reviewing decisions of the circuit �ourt s?ttin¢ Beach, t�r respond�nt.
:n iis a�p�ll«t° capa�ity, the �Jistrict �curt of �,��e�l
letennin�s (1; whetner proceciu�al d�ie proce4s ��as �'H�t;'�i;R, ('.J.
accorded, and (2) whether the correct law was applied. The petitione: seeks a writ of certiorari quashing
che cpinioi� �f tr�e circuit court sitting in its apUeliate
OO 2013 Thamson Retiters. No Cla?m to Oria. 1JS Gnv. Works,
Page 2
756 So.2d 166, 25 Fla. L. Weekly U727
(Cite as: '�56 So.2d 166)
capacity, which reviewed a decision of the Zoning See Haines Citv Commcrniti� Dei- v Heg�s 658 So 2d
Board of Appeals for the City of West Palm Beach. 523, 53�F1a.19951. The question in this case is
The Board had denied a variance to petitioner for his whether the circuit court applied the correct standard
property, and the circuit court denied the petition for of review to the Board's decision denying a variance.
certiorari from that deeision. We deny the petition. The �,rol�c, <,t,u�d�ir�t �>F ���t� ictii� c�Cu z��u•ia��c°z� d��c;i<,i��n
i�; rl-�hc;thc; ihe� dcci�ioii is sup�ui�eel by wiiipc;lent
The opinion of the circuit court 3en,ing relief ���h�t r� ic�enc�° See Ber�fzcard i�. To.vn Coau^cil o
from the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Prr/m Beac{� 569 So.2d 853 854 (Fla 4th
states: DCA 1990). However, the two standards, "fairly de-
batable" and "substantial competent evidence," are
This Court generally reviews all petitions for writ not dissimilar. In Toir�2 of Indialantic i� Nancc 400
of certiorari by determining (1) whether procedural So.2d 37, 40 (Fla. Sth DCA 1981), approved, 419
due process was accorded, (2) whether the essential So.2d 1041 (FIa.1982), the court noted:
requiremerts of the :aw have bee,i o'userved, (3)
whether the administrative findings and judgment The DeGroot "competent substantial evidence"
were support�d �y coiri�etent substantial evidence. standard of review of quasi- judicial action effec-
Citv of' Deerfic?cl Becrch v. l���iant�b'�l�llantl � 19 tively provides the same s±zndar� the "fa?rly de-
So.2d 6?4 (F1a.19�2}, �; there ure ccnflicts in the batable" test provides fur review oi legislative mu-
evidence presented to the *fl67 board, the reviewing nicipal zoning action: P��r i}zc r�cii���� i�, bt� ��nr=i_,irzed,
court wili uphold its judgment if it is a fairly de- �� �i���' ���' �t'�a5t�ii��l�i�,� ba�;e�i iu ii�e e;:icteuc�� �re-
batabl:, decisicr�. £ell ���Cit-��Sc��r�asutr�, 37i So.2d ���'��'�'tl. The two co�ic�,r�i� have been bl�ur•ed; ior
525 (Fla. 2d L7��A_197U�. P. �airly debatable deci- exarrple, �i Bell 1�. ��irt- o� S��r•crsota 37 i So_?d 525
sion is one wh:,re the �oard's action is reasonablv �Fla. 2d DCA 1979), the court utilized both the
baS�Cl 1IIC�, Za %1 �eSEi1I, j�i�VZ11C5 tr�e co�ri �I'O1T1 SU�J- C�.T:j�et�Tlt Stl'OS[..11LiRi f:Vi�eTlCe S�alj(�AY'(,.' �Tl�� t�"ie ,
stitut?ng tii� B��rd'� ,ju:igrne:�t witn that of its own. "fairly debatnble" sirar�da�°c� to :teci�e a zoning �
I.ee Cnztisztv_��,Sau�bclt Nqcri?ie��I_I,_ Linaitec� �art- variance issu_e,,..
�zer.<.�hi��� �,'0.2�199��10(i2 (, la =d DCA 1993).
RS -;;i??,t`rvei t;a�:ie it 3s c:;iled. :_i�� ia5%c of t?1_e
IS? I'�yli vV1132 iCi.� T �t��'", �;'� _1riC� CFIcZi (�1.eYe ��;cZS COW L li:;-1_',L1�111� �i ZOl�ltlf� A�:tt'1�111;C, �jl`Ct5jt�11 !`; 10
su�s�v�ntial cot:�pe�er�� ov:den;,e tc sup�� � the City's �n,'��re il�iat tl�e auti��ority',5 ilecisi�»1 l� Ir;secl c;u c��i •
�8C1SI�21 i�,�ltit =ES�iEC� �O ti18 �1$1`Cl��:lX'i 13�:1.',. i��1iS LOtiI1 ijCllCU �I I'�':1SOII3�)l� 7llltt<1 \i'Cllll(1 Q�C�;�)i (0 �'li��i;t'C �
iS t0� �Cl-rlliii..E i0 t�-�h��'��;: L:li. 2V1�CI:CE �ill: 121i.1St l'iiill'.�U`;li�l1 f.�7��1Q%"+' i��tJi"C�L?6, �? tiC:.�1 i:1 �1C�
uphcl�' ih�� !cw:e: trib�au�l`s decisioj: if ii �vas reascna- �vith y�o'jf ; r;,z.�'i.e <��s�:c,� ;;r� ��.u�i �t �41�����? if
��ie �SiC� �c3Se�_ �ORSSC�a�:iily', Pz r3rit10G �� S2i� L�1i CIl€ !� � �`.�it' ��iu.�l i:�-lc��i1CC' p�t�;:'ilie`C�, tlt� ;�!2(�iurll"'9
Cit��'s c�.e�isio�? t�, �ez15� tli� �ct�tir,ner's ��a��ianre �,p- ;lct� n��ist stancl. �l ��=it,_=__�irst��o
plicaiien �.ias unreasor.a��ie. •;'{�eu ` S;_?d 4?1 (FI�. <+tn I�C;� iq;S�
(footnote omit�edl.
The circui* court :��;talied tl�e carrect �a;u. There-
� i;; � I�, r� � i:��;. i�l;� <l�;cisic,<<s �,f ±he circuir �c��,.� fo_re the petition i� der.ied,
:;ittii�g tii ifs sip��ellate ca}tacity, ihe co�Grt t�f apC3e�1
fl�?lcnni�te4: (() u�liether p��ocedtiral �I�ie E�rocesy �.��as iiLi�lTHEI� ana STE'✓Eiv�SOi�I, J3., cuccur.
a� <,�,r�tled, �ui�l (1) �.��Iletl�ie!� tlle t•o,i�ct t<r�c t��ns appli�d.
ic� 2�I3 Thomson Reuters. No Cla:im to Orig. U� Gov, �?Jor?_s.
Page 3
756 So.2d 166, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D727
(Cite as: 756 So.2d 166)
F1a.App. 4 Dist.,2000.
Smith v. City of West Palm Beach
756 So.2d 166, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D727
END OF DOCUMENT
�O 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. �'Vorks.
Westlaw..
Page 1
95 So.2d 912
(Cite as: 95 So.2d 912)
P quasi judicial as distinguished from being purely ex-
ecutive, and such judgment is subject to judicial re-
Supreme Court of Florida, En Banc. view.
Peter DE GROOT, Appellant,
v. f 2], Officers and Public Employees 283 °�72.50
I,. S. SHEFFIELD et al., Appellees.
283 O�cers and Public Employees
May 29, 1957. 283I Appointment, Qualification, and Tenure
As Amended on Denial of Rehearing June 26, 1957. 283I H Proceedings for Removal, Suspen-
sion, or Other Discipline
Mandamus proceeding to compel petitioner's 2g?I H 3 Judicial Review
reinstatement to classified service position of super- 283k72.49 Scope of Review
visor of construction for counry school board. From '8�k72.50 k. Ir� General; Questions or
judgrnent �f Circuit Court, Duval County, Charles A. Matters Considered, Most Cited Cases
Luckie, J,, dismissing petition, the petitioner appealed. (Forme:ly 2R3k72(2))
The Supreme Court, Thornal, J., held that where ap-
prov2l of Civil Service Board was required as condi- Where an officer or employee is removed pur-
tion precedent to abolition of petitioner's job, order of suant to purely executive autnority, the courts will do
Civil S�rvice Board declining to abolish position of no more than exa�ninE inta the existence of jurisdic-
supervisor of construvtion was subject to appropriate tional facts to derermine only ihe �uestion of the ex-
review by csrtiorari L�ut could not be collaterall}� at- istence of executive jurisd:ction.
tacked �.-� mand�mus proceeding.
j31 Of�r�rs aad ]Public �naplayQes 283
Judgment reversed. �?�•41��)
ti�'est Headnates 2o's Officers a�id �ubiic �mpiayees
28�I A�pc�int�n�nt, Quali ication, and Tenure
,(1i �c�an��.z��� Law- a�c4 }'rocede�re �.5� `'�31!Y.) Praceed:n�� for Removal, Suspen-
���� �i�n ar Otii�r Bisci�lsne
283I,H13 7ud�cia? P.eview
�831c; j.41 Decisions Revie�vable; Fo-
. 1 �A Admi:�isir�-.t:ve Law and Procedur� n;m f� tevie�i
iSAV Ju�icial Review of Administrative �eci-
2�3k72.4: (1) k. In Ger:eral. ivia�t
sions
C'ited Cases
15AV(�} �ecisions arid �,cts Reviewanle (Formerly 2�3%'2.41, 283k72(2))
15Ak701 k. In General. Most Cited Cases
Where C;ivi1 Servjce Board arri�ed at decision
When �otice arid a hearing are required and the tiased on evidence submitted after a full hearing pur-
judgment of board is contingent on the showing made
suant to notice, the 3nard was exercising quasi judi-
at the hearing, then its judgment becomes judicial or
�O 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Vi�orks.
Page 2
95 So.2d 912
(Cite as: 95 So.�d 912)
cial function and its decision was subject to judicial 73 Certiorari
review in an appropriate proceeding. 73I Nature and Grounds
73k1 k. Nature and Scope of Remedy in Gen-
f� Certiorari 73 �1 eral. Most Cited Cases
73 Certiorari Certiorari is in the nature of an appellate process.
73I Nature and Grounds
73k1 k. Nature and Scope of Remedy in Gen- L7j Evidence 157 °�59'�
eral. Most Cited Cases
157 Evidence
�'ertiorari 73 �5(1) 157XIV Weight and Sufficiency
15?k�97 k. Sufficiency to Support �Jerdict or
73 Certiorari Finding. Most Cited Cases
73I Nature and Grounds
73k5 Existence of Rem�edy by Appeal or Writ �°>�.1�:;i�urti��l evidPnce" i� �.rch rel:�� ^� idcnce
of Error a� a reas�nahle i��incl wuuld accept as acl�yuate to
73k5(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases �u�;��rt a wnclusiun. ,
rertiorari is a d�scretior�ary �x�rit bringing up for f�, �dmanistrativ� �,ary� aa�� P:����a�c•e 1��
review by an appellate court the record of an inferi�r L�313
tribunal or ag�ncy in a ju�icial or quasi judicial pro-
ceeding and is available to obtain revie�� in situations 15A Admir.istrative Law and Procednre
when no other method of appeal is available. ; SAIt✓ Po��e��s ai�c F�roceeding: cf Adrnii�istiative
�gencies, Ofrzce�s an� Agerts
f5], �:'eriiorari 73 C..-w6�3 15A1�� in Generai
15.�ik309 Proneed;nl,� in ="irn�;ai
?3 Cenior�ri 15�k3 i 3 k. Ju:i:�ial �'�e���:sarF; %_�-
7311 PI'vCZt;j: � F r� IiCabi�llY 0t �'sll?ti Cf ��iC!z: C�. !\i�'.�fi � Jt�'�i SE'=;
- n� s ah 1 i)�s�r_i�r�:�iot; � � ——
',3k53 R.evi���
73koQ k(2>>f�s:i.,n;; ai ra�,,;. i��icst f`ir;.cl [�i ;i;l�ii�iu,t<<<tiv�� pr��r;�•°d�n�,�; `1��� Tnn:��li;ir:� in
C3�_;E� YhP ii?11'=,'�,`�llCTii7Ci il( iCilii:](1�1v' �" Slt!1t�J� tJ :i?c'.� -L!�ls C'f
�iASL1L:C i11�3 llC�t S111C��S' E:111U;L?�':3u,
In certinr�ri. tl1r, r��vi�����in� coi,rt dt,�,; n�t rc���ci�h
,�� e�:tlu�3te lht e.�.�iil::;lcx hut �.,c_C!� � �_;�l±tir.s the j�j _�e�r_Sidad.��r3�a� a g,�FN ca �, �;�ea. 4 ��
_ P � F �`_iP'� _J.,
rec.��r�j tt, <lelern��;�?e �v�iethe.i the (ril;t!n�il �>r ��,_ral��� l�.tt( � ��51^,
t�ef ii r.�r�n�p�;lc;.�t suLslaiifial c���i[leilce ic� F;u��port its
�ltic�'ll �� i�l({ Li(� li�i0111, ��-�llC�1 ���'�0 Il:LC�'r 1G�,U1`C: �.'1L�1 �
'� �� i 5F Adminisi.at:ve Lu �� ar.d Procedure
ili�� c:;zci��ti�_il re�ai�irel��:ei�ts o!' i�l�c I<i��. 15AIV Po;�ers and Proc�edings c,f �imir�ist�ative
��gyncies, Of �c°� an� �g;;nis
Lbj (:�r�ivr��•i'7� �� il i5A1��(D) Hearing� ar�d.idjaaications
I Sr^1<458 Evider�ce
�c� 2fJ13 l R.euters. No Claim to Orig. LTS Gov. \korks.
Page 3
95 So.2d 912
(Cite as: 95 So.2d 912)
15Ak462 k. Weight and Sufficiency. tion in General. Most Cited Cases
Most Cited Cases
Of�cers and Public Empl�yees 283 °�72.41(1)
Ultimate findings of an administrative body
should be sustained by competent substantial evi- 2g3 O�cers and Public Employees
dence. 283I Appointment, Qualification, and Tenure
283I H Proceedings for Removal, Suspen-
j101 Mandamus 250 �10 sion, or Other Discipline
283I(H)3 Judicial Review
250 Mandamus 283k72.41 Decisions Reviewable; Fo-
250I Nature and Grounds in General rum for Review
250k10 k. Natu.*e an�' Existence of Rights to 283k72.41(11 k. In General, Most
Be Protected or Enforced. Most Cited Cases Cited Cases
(Formerly 283k72.41, 283k72(2))
Mandamus 250 �12
Where approval of Civil Service Board was re-
250 Mandamus quired as candition precedent to abolition of job in
A 250I Nature and Grounds in General classifed service, order of Board declining to abolish
?SOk12 k. Nature of Acts to Be Comr�anded. Position of supervisor of construction for county
Most Cited Cases school board was subject te appropriate review by
certiorari but could not be collaterally sttacked as
deiense to mandamus proceeding brought te compel
Mandamus is an original proceeding to enforce a scroo! baard to reinstate getitioner, v��ho had been
clear legal right to the performance of a clear iegal dismissed when positioa had been abolished. Acts
duty. i 94s, c. 22263, § 7.
ji i�, �'�c�i�n 13 �66 x��3 C�ffee �c �offee, Jackson��ille, f�r appellant.
13 �ctioi? Eliiott Adarns az�d 1vlcCaithy, Lat�e & Aaa�ris, Jack-
I3IJ Ci'om,rnencemPnt, Prosecution, and Termina- ����iile, fo: a�pellees.
tiar�
e �lc6o k. Course ofProcedure in Generai. Most
THUkNAL, Tuscice.
Cited Ca;es
Appellant DeGroot, who was relator below,
seeks reversal of an arder of the Cir�uit J�dge d;�-
Proced:ual formaiities are no± �ecessariiv sacro- nl;ssing his peti�ion for a writ of mandamus whicL ��as
sanct mereiy because they are time-honored. sought t� cc�rnpel tne appellees to reinstate the relator
as an er.iplo�ee of the Duval County School Bo�rc.
,Lj �andaanus 250 ° � 15
The determinirg question is whether ti�.e action
25� Ma�idamus of the County Civil Service Board, wnich super�ises
250I Nature and Grounds in General the c�unty merit system, can be reviewed and collat-
250k15 k. Defenses and Grounds of Opposi- erally assaulted as a defense to a mandainus pra-
�O 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Cl�im to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 4
95 So.2d 912
(Cite as: 95 So.2d 912)
ceeding. eration of the record thereby presented, the trial judge
concluded that regardless of the judgment of the Civil
Relator Peter DeGroot had been an employee of Service Board, the action of the School Board in re-
the Duval County School Board for about eighteen solving to abolish the position of Supervisor of Con-
years prior to February 9, 1955. For the last ten years struction was taken in good faith and that therefore
he held the position of `Supervisor of Construction.' DeGroot was subject to dismissal. He thereupon
Since 1943 he was in the classified service under the gY'�ted the respondents-appellees' motion to dismiss
Duval County Civil Service Act. See Chapter 22263, the petition in mandamus and entered fmal judgment
Laws of Florida, Acts of 1943. On August 4, 1954, the in their favor. Reversal of this judgment is here
School Board, with the approval of the Civil Service sought.
Board, created the position of `Supervising ArchitecY
and filled the job by appointment of a registered ar- It is contended by the appellant-relator that the
chitect named Broadfoot. On February 9, 1955, the decision of the Civil Service Board was not subject to
School Board adonted a resolution delineating the collateral attack by the respondents in the mandamus
functions of the Supervising Architect, many of which proceeding. He further contends that if review of that
had theretofore been performed by DeGroot, as Su- order were desired by the respondents, they should
pervisor of Construction. By the same resolution the have proceeded by way of certiorari and that in all
School Board proposed that the position of Supervisor events the trial judge conld not re-weigh the evidence
of Construction be abolished. presented to the Civil Service Board.
Section 7, �ha�ter 22263, Laws of Fiorida, Acts It is t.he positio� of tl appellees that the urder of
of 1943, pz•ovides in part as follows: the Civil Service Board sroul� not be enforced in the
absence of supportir�g su�stantial evider�ce and thai
`* �` * No position in the classified jservice] shall �e decision ar th� �oard cauld be reviPw�d by the
be abolished �vith�ut the a}�proval of`the Civil Service Circuit ,iudge regardless oi the r.aturP of the proceed-
Loard. Positions ma� be ab�lished �nly in good faith.' ing to deternune v��hethPr thPre was substantial evi-
denae ?n support #hereof.
Pursuant to this requiren�nt, tYae School Board
resobaticn was su�riit�ed ±G th� Countti Civil Service We a�e here s��unr.ty ccri� �✓ith the pr�b-
t,oard wh�en afier an Pxtendeci liearing, cieclined to jE� o� deter�:u:iing t��e ap�:oprate �rGCedure for
approve the resoiution �efiniiig the duties of tne Ar- obtaining reviev� ef an order of an a�r:iinis+�rative
chitECt and ai;oii�'r.zn� the pasitsor. oi Supervisor ef �gency. filth�Kgh ��rninistraiive ager�cies have l�een
Canstruction. kno�,�m to t�e la:u f�r rra:�y� years, it has only been
within fairly rec�ut y��rs that a substantial body of
T�es�ite t�iv a;,tzcn af t��e Civil Service Board, the vuri�pnzde��ce l�as de���loped with reference to
Sckool Board �raceeded to dismiss DeGroot fror.� his so-called `�cminis*rat:ve lav��.' Because or th� expan-
er�plo;lment. He tkerei��or� i�stituted this action in sion of the number of boards, commissions, bureaus
m�ndam�.zs to c�mpel reinsta±ement. In the mandamks and ofticials having authority ta make orders or de-
procee��g i.he pariies stipu?ated ti t�he transcript of terminations which directly affect both public and
the testim�ny oifered *934 before the Civil Service Frivzte rights, thPre has been an ine�easing nur�ber of
Board could be tiled in evidence. A motion to quash cases involving ihe exten* of tre authoriry of these
the alternative writ ;�as :ikewise filed. Upon consid- agencies as well as the validity or correctness of thzir
conclusions in particular instances. We are told that in
�O 2G 13 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 5
95 So.2d 912
(Cite as: 95 So.2d 912)
our state government there are over one hundred the Board is executive in nature and beyond the reach
boards, bureaus and officials engaged in administra- of the court. In Brvan v. Landis, 106 Fla. 19, 142 So.
tive activities affecting the rights and property of 6� it was pointed out that where one holds office at
individuals as well as the public. See French's Re- the pleasure of the appointing power and the power of
search in Florida Law, p. 54; 1 Florida Law and Prac- appointment is coupled with the power of removal
tice, Administrative Law, Sec. 30. In addition there are contingent only on the exercise of personal judgment
innumerable county and city boards and agencies such by the appointing authority, then the decision to re-
as Civil Service Boards and other boards that perform move or dismiss is purely executive and not subject to
similar functions. judicial review. In the same opinion, however, we
pointed out that if removal or suspension of a public
Although over the years many cases in one form employee is contingent upon approval by an official or
or another have come to this court involving the cor- a board after notice and hearing, then the ultimate
rectness of orders of administrative agencies, we are judgment of such official or board based on the
unaware of any that has squarely �nd directly raised showing made at the hearing is subject to appropriate
the problems presented by the instant appeal. Despite judicial review. The reason for the difference is that
the local n�ture of the particular preblerri at hand, it when notice and a hearing are required and the judg-
appears to us that it is appropriate to undertake to ment of the board is contingent on the showing made
reconcil many of our previous apnarently d?vergent at the hearing, then its judgment becomes judicial or
opinions in an offort to establish for the future some quasi judicial as distinguished from being purely
orderly pr�cedure in disposing of problems of this executive. See also, Owen r. Bond. 8? Fla. 495, 91 So.
nature. We do this also in fairness to ±he trial judge 686� Sinnans v. Owen, 87 Fla. 485, 100 So. 734; State
who undoubte3ly was confronted with some of these ex rel. Tullidae v. H�llin�;swort?i, 103 Fla. 801, 13R
conflicting viewpoints but who did not have available So. 372; State ex rel. Hatton v. JouQhin, 103 Fla. 877,
the epportunity for detailed research *hat ac�empanies 138 So. 392; 5tate ex rel. Pinellas Kennel Club v. State
appellate review. Nanetheless, as p�i. te3 out by Racin�Commission, 116 Fla. 143 156 So. 317. in tne
Kenneth Culp Bavis in 4� Illinois Law Revie �u �. 56�, same cases ar.d simila: ones it uras hAid that wnere an
`No hranch of admin;strative law is more serionsly ir� o�cer or employee is remov�d �u�s��ant to pure�y
need of reforn than th� lati�v c�ncerr.ing ni�ihods of �xecutive authoriiy, tn� co�at will do no r�ore than
judicial review.' This attihcir th;.n ob:�erves, `I�To o�her examine into the existence of jurisc�ic�ion�? fa-�ts t�
brancn is so easy to reform.' The reviewability of an deterrt�ine only the ques�ion of the �xis�ence af exec-
administrative arder dep�nds on whether the function ��i��e jurisdiction.
of thP agency involved is juciiciai or �aa�i-judicial in
which its etders ar� reviet�•abl� or on the a�r�t:ary j31 Eipply�ng the rule of t�esz casES io �he s;tt�a-
whether the function of the a�ency is executive in tion before us it is perfectly oGvious ihat in deci�ing
which event its decisicns are not reviewable b;� the upon irhe advisability o: ab�lishing a posztion in the
courts except oi� thL sole grou-lc of lack of juris�iic- classified service, tiie Civil S�rvic� t3oa�•c� �.�as eYer-
tion. In the latter event the order is, of cour�e, sub,;ect ci�ing a quasi ju�icial functien. This is sc f r;1ie
io direct or collateral attack. reason ttiat it arrived ar its decis?on ait�r a f�ll h�arifig
pursuant to notice based on evidence submitted in
f 11 f21 It is in some r.ieasure insisted ir: the case accordance with the statu=e here involve�i. 1'h�s beir_g
before us that tr�e decisicn of the *916 Civil Se� �o �is ultima±e decision was subject Yo j�adiciai r�view
Board is beyond the scope of judicial review. The in an appropriate proceeding. State ex rel. Williams
cantention t� this end is that the ultimate decision of v. VVhitman, 116 Fla. 196. 150 Sc. 136. 15E So. 705,
�O 2013 "Chomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 6
95 So.2d 912
, (Cite as: 95 5o.2d 912)
95 A.L.R. 1416; West Fla�ler Amusement Co. v. State under cx�mir�nti�n. The a}�p�-llnYe c�urt merely ex-
Racing Commission, 122 Fla. 2?2, 165 So. 64• State aii�ines the record macie bel�w to �leleiitiine whether
ex rel. Hathawav v. Williains, 149 Fla. 48, 5 So?d ��hc l���ae� trib�ulal hati I>c�iore it c�,n�petent �ubs��ari�ial
269' Hammond v. Curry, 153 Fla. 245, 14 So.2d 390. e�� ulc;uc�� t�� .;u���x,rt ii.s Gnrlin�_s �n�d juci�?incnl �a-I�ich
.�I,�� inti�,l �tc�;��r�l �,�-i�li Ifire.tis��n�i�if re��uirenu^ii�4; of�ilie
Having determined the nature of the order under ��3��' It is clear that certiorari is in the nature of an
consideration we next �roceed to ascertain the ap- appellate process. It is a method of obtaining review,
propriate method of obtaining review as well as the as contrasted to a collateral assault.
scope of review available. It must be conceded that
over the years orders of administrative agencies have (7l f 8J [91 We have used the term `comnetent sub-
been placed under scrutiny in Florida in both man- si��n�i,�1 �����i�_i4��c��� ;�it� i,����.11�. �ul�.;i;�niial ei�idencc h<is
damus and certiorari cases. Admittedly, little attention heen ci�;sciiheci ,,� <,ut:li ��� i�lciic�� a� ��ill cstahlish ,i
has been given to the propriety of the procedure in suh:i,i�itial hasis �.�1� C=�ct 1i�c�u� ti��l�i�;l� tlie [';�ct s�i issuc
particular cases. Hence the resiiltant con£usion, We can hP r?a�nnahiv ir�fcrr���i. 41"�� la<<�-� �t,�r���i ii t�� be
iuterpolate that we pretermit in this instance any dis- :;ucli ��:lc�aii� �vidence as a reasonable mind would
cus�ion �f the pr�per usP of the equity in;unetion and ,���t ����,� <i�� ,,�lc�l<<,�!�� !�, .���:l�urt a c�����.�lusit�n ��� v.
the urrit of prohibition. Injunction has been many Merrill 155 Fla. 379 20 So.2d 912 Lane�v. Board of
times emplo_ve� to assault legislative action �t the srate Public Instniction, 153 Fla. 728. 15 So.2d 748. In
and local level where such action allegedly impinged employing the adjective `competent' to modify the
or� scr:�e cGr,stitutional rigl�t. �itiacks on municipal word `sabsiantial,' we are aware of tile famiiiar rule
z�ning orclinances are typical. Prohihition has at that in ad?ninis±rati�e procePdings the form.alities in
tir:��s �een emp:oyed as agair.st quasi-judicial action ihe introductior� o: testi�ricny cc;nmo:� to the courts of
of administrative agencies wher� the agency proposed justice are not strictly �mployed. Jenl<i�as v. Currv.
t� Pxceed its jnri�dic±ion or e�ercisP jurisdiction whicb 154 F1a. 617_ 18 So.2d 5? 1. ���%e �i ��: �� (� thc� ti� ic N,
it c�id not ha��e. ��e fi�rther mention that we are dis- h�>��;��v��r. that �lit: c��i�l�ncc: rc°lie�l ��I,�,n t,� sustain the
ckss:��g ret°e�vith appel:ate review izi situa�ians where altimaie itr.uing ��ould be �ut'ficier�?1v rele Qiid
�ppl;ca�:e statute� �Fail :o previue specific :neChads of nl<<te; i.11 ilr«i a;;-a.,oua(�lc ni;n�l woulut acec��i ii ,��,
T'CtilyL�J 3S �,N3S t'1e Ca_SF h��2. 't•��10ri i�1P St3illtv rT'�J'v1t�eS ���CC�lt,tl� l�� ,�Uj���011 t�lf: Ct�t]��llSl6t? n:ilCilt�C�. i�> iills
the a�pL•lsat�� r:'e��e.�iare, that cot;�se shoulci �e f:�l- ��xicni t6G° '�ubtitaniial' cvidenci� =.�i��u1�1 a?�� ha
lowed. �urry_v._5hields. rfa.195�, 61 So2d "s'?6_ ��;�,iu�>etent ' Schwa_rrz, AmPric�n Aciministrative
�?i7: :�iate �x rel. Coteinan v. Sirumoi�Fla.ly57. 9? i.aw. ��. 8�; i'he Substaniiai E.v�dence R.ule by �aI-
�G.� (� 75% CO:YT i £Z�S:�`.ii� t'iC.- L"u�-1� ��E`Z;12Vv'� ��61. ��'� hv �. �.
[�.�3; ii;iiti:c( '•Czi�f,� _Cd�t[uliY�C�Jillp�iti�_V. �/13r�'l�_Tl�j
�lj�ittr� Recut�ing to the,�ro�lem at harci wP are �_asu��tY C:o_rnany._Fia 1951 55 3o.2d /4! : i�'onsol_
remind�d tha° cer��orari ;s a di�c�e�io5�a; �Fn�ii hr;n,- �dated �da_�c�i�_(:'o_of f�Ie�� Y_oi_i< v_I�;atior�al Lauc�r
iris t:p icr r�vie�v by an ap�ellate court the reecrd of an 2�;1;�._ion� F'=ca_rci. �GS U S_ :97. �9 S.Ct. 206, 83 L. �u,
inferor �ribuiial or agency in a judicial or quasi-*�15 i26.
ju�ici�:1 �roce�:iing. T�e wr:t is a°�ailabla tu obiain
review in sncii situaiions when �o othe,� metliod of 1� As contrasted to c��iora�i, manuamus is an
aa�eai is a� Lorenzo �✓. Niui�i�y,159 Fl.�._b39, or;gir,al p.�ceecsirg to enfo�ce 4 c:e,ar legul right tr, t`_.ie
��� . �r� 1_. �il c'e;I�tiUl di i i�ii�� 1� � 1t'\�1�111� GOUCt lVi�) IiOt T38iGs:'�dT:Ce Of a GI�;I' 1��31 c�lt1}%. IY 1S rGt 111 t1Y�Eli2`le
uudert��l.e t�� rc v<<:i±rh r�r c��<<lua�c; th�; evici�ncc� pre�- writ. As in any ariginal proceeding the record and
t(;1?"l'.'<� �"�C�O�C= T�li' ICl�)LlI121� (;I� Ciai'ilC}' 1V:iUSC U:Y1CI 1S eV1GP,T1C'� 22 11aG: 71i1G� OffCI'i.Ci 11] �18t �TOi,ei.C�ll'i�.
�O' 2013 %homson Renters. No Claim to Uri�. i�S Gov. Work�.
Page 7
95 So.2d 912
(Cite as: 95 So.2d 912)
While it is by nature discretionary it is not an appro- Am.Jur., Public Administrative Law, Sec. 159, 160;
priate process to obtain a review of an order entered by State ex rel. Spruck v. Civil Service Board, 226 Minn.
a judicial or quasi judicial agency acting within its 240, 32 N.W'.2d 574.
jurisdiction. When thus analyzed it is obvious that
certiorari and mandamus serve two entirely different We mention in passing that there were no charges
functions. before the Civil Service Board that relator had failed
in any measure to perfarm his job well. The sole issue
f l l j In delineating the distinctions between cer- revolved around abolishing the job that he held.
tiorari and mandamus we disclaim any allegiance to
the formalities and technicalities of the past. Proce- In view of the foregoing, from the showing made
dural formalities are not necessarily sacrosanct merely by this record, the relator was entitled to the issuance
because they are time-honored. Nonetheless, in situa- of a peremptory writ. It was error to dismiss his �eti-
tions such as the one before us, the distinctions have a tion therefor. The judgment under review is there-
present and vital importance in determining the issues fore--
presented by the litigants and considered by the trial
court. We think the lines of demarcation are justifable Reversed.
in a field such as administrative law which is still in its
formative stages of development.
TERRELL, C. J., and THOMAS, HOBSON,
,(12j, Applying the foregoing general rules to the ROBERTS, DREW and O'CONNELL, JJ., concur.
On Reheariiig
situati�n pres�nted by this rvcord it b.°,comes a�;parent pER CURIAIVI.
tha? the assault made by±he respendents-appel�ees on The last senter�ce of our opinion af May 29,
the order of the Civil Service Board as a defense to the 1957, is ar�ended to read as foll�ws:
mandamus �roceeding was 4ntirely coilateral to the
quasi-judicial proceeding had before the Civi1 Service
Board itself. I�o dire�t revi�i� of +.he order of the Civil `The judgm�nt �anrier ret�ie�v is tkerefore reversec!
Service Boar� �Nas sokght hy �e app�llees. Tre Civil Without pr�judice tc, an;� rigY:ts �.hich tne appellees
Service Act s�eci�icail}� re�uire� t��e �pproval �f the �ay �ave unc�er the rales anr.�uuced in State ex reF.
Civii Serdic: Boarci as a ca�diticn ece�ent to the Dresske[I v. �itv of ivtiarr;i is.; Fla. 90, A? So.2d
P�
abolition of the ;eb i_r, thP clz��ified se?vice. Pricr to �� ��'
dismissing the a�pellant-rel�to: the S;,hoo1 B:�ard h�d
failed in iis effo:�t te �btain s�:cr ap�:c�e�l. s.t is rad When ad�r�ssec� to th� ��inii�fl �s a�ren�ec, tl:e
been dissatisfied wit:n th� order c�f ihe rivil Service petition fcr rehear:ng is dei�ie�i.
Y917 Board such o:der vvas subiect to appropriate
review by certioraw. Whe:� =he manc�a:rus proceeding TERRELL, i;. .i., ard TH�1��AS, R_C)�EtZTS and
was fled by the � t1�e order oi the Civil Service THORN�iL, JJ., conrur.
Board declining to abolish tl job held by the relator
was in �ull force and eifect. There is no a5sauit on ihe Fla. 1957
jarisdiction of that board. The jcb therefore had not pe Groot v. Sheffield
been legally ab�lishe�. This being so, the relator under 95 So.2d 912
th� C;vil Service Act was entitled to c�ntinue to fill
the job and his dismissal was without justification. END OF DOCUIVIENT
Freeman on Judgments (Sth e�.) �'ol. 3, �:,c. 1258; 42
L> 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov, Works.
Page 8
95 So.2d 912
(Cite as: 95 So.2d 912)
�O 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. TJS Gov. Works.
Westlaw,
Page 1
299 So.2d 657
(Cite as: 299 So.2d 657)
C
jl], Zoning and Planning 414 °r 1541
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
The CITY OF AI'OPKA, Florida, et al., Appellants, 414 Zoning and Planning
v. 414IX Variances and Exceptions
ORANGE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the 414IX L Proceedings for Variances and Ex-
State of Florida, and Clarcona Improvement Associa- ceptions
tion, Appellees. 414k1539 Notice and Hearing
414k1541 k. Notice. Most Cited Cases
No. 73-273. (Formerly 414k534)
Feb. 22, 1974.
On Rehearing April 11, 1974. Zoning and Planning 414 �1542
Applicatior. sabmitted by three communities for 414 Zoning and Planning
special exception to allovv constructi�n of airport on 414IX Variances and Exceptions
extraterritorial land owned by them was denied by the 414IX B Proceedings for Variances and Ex-
zoning board of adjustment and the board of county ceptions
commissioners affirmed. Municipalities' petition for 414k1539 Notice and Hearing
certiorari was denied by t;�e Circuit Court, Orange d14kI542 k. Hearings in general. Most
County, Parker Lee ivlcDonald, J., and muricipalities Cited Cases
appealed. �he District Court of Appeal, Downey, J., (Formerly 414k541)
held that it was not the function of the board of caunty
c�mmissioners ±o hold a plebiscite on the application Aithough noci�e =o, and 'h_earing of, the propo-
far spe�izt �x.ceptiofi and that board's duty was to nents and czpar�erts of application f�r s�ecial excep-
make fi:�din� as to how c�n�tn:ction and operation of tion for coristfiucii:�n o;°. air��ort was essential and all
proposed air�x,rt woui� affect public interest and base it_tereste�' p�ies s��oaid ha��e �een gii�en full a�d fair
its grar_tir�� ar de;�ial of ��e special pxeepiion on those o�poriunity t� Px�r�ss t� ei� ��i�ws, ?t was not the
find:ngs; �n� that �vi�ercz wh�ch con.,isted mainly �f function af the beard of ccunty cc�mmissioners t� hol�
l�timen's apiniot�s �Thich tuer? t.nsubstaneiatecl b.,� a plebi�c;.te on the app?iUatia� foz tne special excep-
cc�np�terst f�ets a�?d iv�ich ��ere submitte� at hearing tio.�.
where �.�itnesses were not sworn and where
c�oss-exu;riratian was s�ecifically prohibited did not
su;3�ort conclt�si�n t�iat public interest would be ad- 1�. Z�ning a�a I'iar:ni�� �I�a �`�1552
versely affected by the grantin� of the special excep-
tion. 414 "�oning znd Planning
41�IX Var;ances a�i�i Exceptions
Reversed and rem:�xic!4d with direciions. 41�-IX(B) Proceed;ngs for `Jariances and Ex-
ceptions
414k1547 Determination
West I�eadnotes 414k: 552 k. Piiidings, reasons, cenclu-
�O 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig, US Gov. Works.
Page 2
299 So.2d 657
(Cite as: 299 So.2d 657)
sions, minutes or records. Most Cited Cases DOWNEY, Judge.
(Formerly 414k544) This is an appeal by the cities of Apopka, Ocoee,
and Winter Garden and the Tri-City Airport Authority
Purpose of board of county commissioners, in from a final judgment of the circuit court denying their
ruling on application for special exception to zoning petition for certiorari which sought review of an order
ordinance, was to make findings as to how construc- denying appellants' application for a special excep-
tion and operation of the proposed airport w�uld affect tion. This is a companion appeal to those consolidated
the public and it was board's duty to base its granting appeals numbered 72-1204 and 72-1209, 299 So.2d
or denial of the special exception upon those _findings. 652.
,j3j Zoning and Planning 414 �1503 The appellant cities formed the appellant Tri-City
Airport Authority pursuant to Chapter 332, F.S.1971,
414 Zoning ar.d Planning F.S.A., commonly known as The Airport Law of
414IX Variances and Exceptions 1945, for the purpose of building an airport t� sen�e
414IX A In General the three cities and the surrounding area. Appropriate
414k1503 k. Aviation and airports. Most engineering studies were made and rari�us sites for
Cited Cases the proposed airport were considered. Finally, the
(Formerly 414k537.1, 414k537) Authority determined that a parcel of property located
in Orange County outside any municipality and zoned
A-1 was the most suitable siie for ihe proposed airport.
Where evidence in oppcsitior. to �equest for spe- The Authority thereafter ob±ainPd �ptions to buy that
cial exception for construction of airport cansisted properly. Orarige County's zonirig legislation permits
mainly of laymen's opinioris, unsubstantiaied by any construction and operation of `airplane landing f elds
competent facts, where witnesses were not sworn and and helicopter ports with accessory facilities for pri-
cross-examination w�as specifcally prohibited ar�d vate or public use' in an A-1 3is�ict as a s�ecial ex-
where board of co commissianers inade no find- ception. Thus, the three ciiies and the Auti�oi�ity fiied
ings of fact bearing on tne �uestion of th� effect of the an applicatian for a s�ecial exaeption wit� th� Orangz
proposed airport on the p��blic interest, there �ras no ��unty Zonina Bcard of Aciiustrnent t� build t?aeir
substantial competent evidenc� to supp�irt c�nclusian proposed a�rport. Wit.ioa� e�ter��� ar;y tinc�i�xg :�f fact
that public inter�st w��uld be adv�rvely �fzected �y the Zoning �oard of Adjustment de�ec� ±he ap�lica-
granting the sperial pe*mi;. West's F.S:�. � 33"?.(_� 1 et tion on the ground tnat granting it `wonld be advers�
se�c..; Sp.Acts 1963 c. 63-1716 as amended. to the general �ublic inteiest.' Cin ap;�ea1 �o t��e BoQ.rd
o£County Cornmissioners a de nvvv hearing was held
*657 William �. 1�Z;tchell, of G1Gs, �Iearick �. Rot�- with the following r�sult:
inso�, Orlando, for appellants.
`A motion was made by Gammissioner �icisett,
*65� Steven R. Bechtel, of Mateer & I�arbert, Or- seconded by Commissioner Poe, and carrieci, that ihe
lando, for appell?e Qrarge county. decision of the Baard of Zo.i:ng Adjustme;�t on De-
cember 2, 1971 denying application No. 2 for a Spe-
Carter A. Braciford, of Bradfcid, Oswald, Thazp & cial Exception in an A-1 �istrict fc�� the construr,�ion
r ietcl Orlando, far appeilee Clar�an� Im�ravEment of a prop�sed Tri-City .'�irport be af�n and u�helu
Assn. on the grounds that the granting of the proposed Spe-
cial Exception �vould adversely affect the gEnerai
�?,013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 3
299 So.2d 657
(Cite as: 299 So.2d 657)
public and would be detrimental to the public health, government agency including the Federal Aviation
safety, comfort, order, convenience, prosperity and Administration, the Florida Department of Transpor-
general welfare and, therefore, not in accordance with tation, and the Florida Department of Air and Water
the Comprehensive Zoning Plan of Orange County.' Pollution Control.
Appellants then filed a petition for a un�it of cer- l h� �� ide�tce u����m ����hich the Roard of County
tiorari in the circuit co�irt in accordance with the pro- C�mmissic�nexs reliccl t;, il�:uv ey>��cll,�iii�;' a��E�lic<<tion
visions of the Orange County Zoning Act, Chapter c�uue 1�rum ime �bntrin�= ��i�ner. Rishard Byrd; stveral
63-1716, Laws of Florida, as amended, to obtain re- othci u��ners ���itiiiii a t4v� �o livc iiule ��zicliu.� ot� i(�P
view of the foregoing decision of the Board of County ��rc ,iirl�o�t site� a pe�i�iui� .�i�;ncd by s��,i�e ��ti�o
Commissioners. While the petition for eertiorari was Ilunclrecl �ur�nibc��s of il�e C'lrircon� lnlproveu�ie�it As-
pending appellants filed another action in the Circuit �;��ci�iii��u; ,�nd apa�rt,xi�uately thi��ty-t]ve peo��l<� i�a
Court of Orange County. The new action sought a aurndanre �ii the hcarin� who ��bjected hut cli<1 noi
declaration that implementation of Chapter 332, �_���iik'��. 13vr<i's testiar���uy ��ti�<ls �n<�irily ciir��ctc�1 tn his
F.S.1971, F.S.A., by the appellants constituted a o�ininn �5i'���l�iat tlle� aiii�o�i wc��fld c1n t�o c�nstruction
gov�rnmental function thereby exempting appellants ::,s�s ui ili� �re� aiid h�s ipinior� of� what wuuld ha��;en
from the operation of Orange County zoning regula- �t> >t_,�,i�rti i�� tlle .n�ea <��� �� ce:;uli o;' ihe ��roposeci u<;c. ii
tions. »l��u tilcv�lopecl Pha� }3yr�! is iute;restc:d in buyine. the
��rr�perty ��ro�osed to be i�sed as the r:�ir}»rt. S��v��ral
In order to determine whether there was substan- ������'�� }'����1��=��Y' �;'����«��� SPzi���lai��d ;iix�ui wl�at ti.v��nld
tial ���:peter.t evidence to support tr.e decision be:ow hapnPn m rhe ;�rea'��� �nziin� c�n�� ?�c?�T the
�ve rnust of necessi±y resort to the evidence introduced a�.�uciva�ed ,��„ise, an�i �czierally wanted iu kec� the
at ihe hearing befcre the Board of County Commis- '�i�=�i��s �,u� i�� th� ar:;_i. ��ne witness who admitted he
sioners. The appel.ants adduced ev:dence fror�i (,a,: the �'�as a layma_r. with no cp�cial training or experien.e
Tri-City �.irport Autho�it; ro�sultirg engineer, �L} a 2�visP� the B�ar� about his opinior. of the damage te
renresent�tive of the Federal Aviation Agency, �c j ancl the Florida aqnifer which wauid result fi�om the �ro-
=� rez�resent�tis�e of the F?onda �erartmenr of Trans- ���e� air
�»�u€:on, i',�ass ����r�sit 7i��is:on, Th�,i� tes�i�ic�ny
t'S�IO�'c"%� tC�c� fil�i2 v✓FiS 2 C10�:71t� �3li 11��C3 10: t�l@ f����j - i101i�� Itt 7t1e� �lcitl"iTt� Of ili�
?L'p�I';' ;113± Sel'10:1� ?r_ dep*. S?U�IeS 1;�� k)°�J: ?I12G�e Y,O p' �i,ti� (',���)i�c';i�:� O: ir ���7!1CaC±Ull ��l' a
de±�r!�ine the mast appr�pr�priate loca-tior for the ���ecir�l �.sc:r,ption c�r other zoning ch<irlge a� esseiitial
a:?�E�rt; '�t3�t C1ia io<;atie:� s� c�t�estien �.u<<s tr�e ��.t an�l all int���i�ested i�arties shoul�l be t,;iven a tull aud fai��
�v�?ia^l� co��:d�r�n� sa�h Factcrs as (1) coii?��:ie�ice. �;i��>o��iuuity to express ilicii vie�v:;, it �j�as not il�e
to nsers, (<"'.1 i�nd anc� area reqt�irements, �3) �en- tuiictio�i oC the 13nat•d c�f �'otu�tj� Comniissiorlers to
eraJ*��� �:���ograpny, (4) `com��atabzlity ��itl=�:x�is:ing hold �� pl�bisc�?te on tFir ����plicziiio» f'or th� sp�°ci�i
la;�d usc, �l�ns a�id lat�d users', �5j land casts, (6) air ���ce���ti:��i. RgeI<vilic �_ue: and F�eed Co. �._B��ar� cf
3pace and cbjections, (7j availability of utilities, (3) Aua�als, �57 i�id. i�3, 202 A.2d �+9y �04 i 1970i. As
r_c;�se �:o�l�ms, ;9) bi:d rab�tats and a�her ecoiogic�l Noi:�te� out by Frcfesso� Andersan in s�'olume 3 of irs
pr�blzms. Tl:e rriaycrs of the t�uee municipalities ar�d work, Arnerican Law oFZoning, s 15.27, pp. 155-156:
th� members of the Airport Authority also dem�n-
3tiP?�t°� L��i �e u°IECt?G*1 O�tile �iie lll CjlieStiCt`l I'ESUitB.'�i `7i t�i��;s ❑u� lc;l�OP;, I�i21t t"tlfle't l[l' �l,�l;l;ttt�'�
from long study and competent advice on the subject. �,� ��I�,� �,�;.i;i�;�-rt,��ici fiinctions ot zonin� should be
App�ova. '�ad been receive� from every interestzd c;ontrolied ur Cvc�� uucluly i,illue�iceei i;y opiiiioii� <incl
�O 2013 1 homson Reuterc. I�Io C1aim to Orig. US (iov. Work�,
Page 4
299 So.2d 657
(Cite as: �99 So.�d 657)
�Ic;,i� �.��7rc�t;secl hy in(cr�°���cl ����rson; at ��ubl�c struction, F1zt.App.1971, 247 So.2d 80.
he<�3�in��r�. Commenting upon the role of the public
hearing in the processing of permit applications, the ��� The e� i�i ���positinn to fli�, requect far
Supremc Cuurt of Rhode Island said: e.�c�pli��i was in the main laymen's opmions unsub-
si�inii<i[��41 i�ti -uiy� ��nu�����ieui i�ac(� 11'ii�u.:�>scs «;cG�c u�:,t
`Pnhlic notice of the hearinn of an lpplic�ti�n for s��.���� n an�.i � i����; er.in�iil��ii�,n �vr�.� s�>�cii]c�illy ����nhib-
��.�,�cl7tiu�� , ca �u_,i «�v��ii li�� thz f,u, of'pc�lling i��ci.AlthoughtheOrangeCeuntyZoningActrequLes
lhe iiei;;hb��i cm thc yucstio�i iii��oh�c�l, l��_�t [o ��iv� the Board ofCounty Commissioners to make a finding
ii�_�L���s�ed }�ersous rii� ui��:�o>>nniry to presc:iit tacrs liozn that� the gr�nting of the s�PCial ex�eption shall not
�vliicll thc b��ard may deteri�liii�; ��v}aettier �Ize pai�tici�l�+r adversely affeet the public interest, the Board made no
pz��� ��F rhe ordin�ince, as applied t� ttle ap�-,l�- finding of facts bearing on the question of the effect
ca�lt'.s pro�_�erty., i.s r��asonably ��eccss��r F'�r �hc ��ro- the proposed airport would have on the public interest;
�c°,�1 ��;n �;f public hcalrJ� ..., "1'he l�oard st�oulci b,�.,e it simply stated as a conclusion that the exception
tli�ird�,termivaiion upo�i Fa��t�. tivhich thev fiuci <<� li<�ve would adverseJy affect the pi�blic interest. Accord-
been e�ta,bli�,hed. fn�tead of itpon the ��»�hr�s of pe�- ingly, u�? fincl ;t impa�sihle tr� ��.,��t�•lude thlt nn an
;n;t�, �.��1��� ,i�s�ear 1oi� oi� a�ainsi [he �ras![tn� �f� the ;,r;nr :i�; i������iiisii.f ;��: ilic �>ne [7cf�;�r�� [(7�: bu�;r�l. there
upplicati;�n.' wa� ��ih�,ran��al �r>mpetent e��idence t� coriclucl� lliat
Phc E��ttl�lt�.� �nl���r�.°.i Sn���Nilci b<� a 1vc,t �cl��.� �ztl�cctt��l I�y
The nhje�ti�ns of � larnP m�mber �f reeidents of ���aiiiiug tl�� ap�ollaiits lii� �peciul ca_�_c�.�tioii tlicy liad
thc ,�i ic�.Cc�1 uc�<rl�l�>r,>rtiood are not a s�zt�iid l�asis ti�r i�lle t1�1�1�� �I i����
de��;i�+( ��f a}��snniY_ Thc Gizasi-jttclicial i�unction �.>i a
hc��irci uCzidjtisUnent �m_isi be exercitiPd on tli: basis :�l 1`he judgment appea:ed from is ±herefere reversed
th�� f<icts adduced; nuiiici�ous obj�ctions hy adjoini�i�� and remanded to the circuit court with directioi7s to
lanjci,;��-nc:r� i,3rt�� ��ut rr<>i�c��1,� h� ��,i���a� ��v�.n r� c��m�_,- grant the wt�;t oi czriiorax? arzd �c ser�2n�e ti cause to
l�rive e�fect. �t'hii� the �ac�� d?�cl�;sed ny nl�jee�ting the board of counta eotnmissi�ners f�r anotner de
nei�hbors shoi2ld I�e �:oiisi 3c� ��d, t��e c���u ts I�av� sai3 n�vo h_e�rine on the appliea.tion f�r s�e: ia1 e�ce�tior_.
that:
�f the d;;c:sion .�f �l�ie to��d is �i�e,ne:� to'�P ar�i-
` Y[1Et"e T7(?�i :)f r`l� i7fl�r�t�i:�7"it1R IiiT:f'till\t7l;t':; (I;}t;c ti31y OT [1=iI'f'�Si�il�itii2 :�1�' rS��; ° �)�i?'fv Vvlil f}1EY1 '
=1t)i i:��`v' l�) �F:ti)>;i l�t� �.i)2t(c� I!? C�E;iCi'ttl!i71FlL�T \xl'f;2i�102' h'clY'� ti18 G�i1611 Of d JAQ1�1a1 i�.V'1.�.�`v J�% C0i�1C'rT'3i1
ik?e : xc�„piiun'`"6�30 aPNlicd �i�i i5 coitsi�terit �:� i!li tii� pursuant to Fla:; C��;��?lat� Y-_u�es or ��ria? d� n�vc
�Uu�IC �011��t:lll�"RC'c' i)I� l�'C����II`£ Ol' \V�IC-T�l�'1� I� �x%LI !C:li� 121 C�'_'i ;12`CUl� �C•tu�: �i�12'SA�i�r `O F�tc ��€;��� Or �,1"t�ll
t�� l�l;�:�;�.it:lii; li.�' lit;l��1�)ULlli� �?1C;],�L'2'�)�." �IOCL'f�U3'e. SfCtl�i�_� U� ���� i'_i.l�i i, �t'.�.A.
(Pc�c,t�zat�=� c�nii�t.eci; Fe,re����ii an�' rer_r,a��Cec' �.v:ri: �i=se�_Jori�.
IP.�1erl(� t}"!? rSC�YI'Ci'� ('l)��:1�F �['dS �G Tt11K� r1I1(j1T1bS W�J,�E� �.Ii'� IZL.'�v��_� .!,l.� CCl:^,Uf.
a:; t�� I�io��� cons�iruction ac:d operation �>i� thc �ro�;cs�°d OI�t F;�'TITI�NS I��° �F�E.�.z:iti�G.
.�i���ort ����c�ul�l ai�feci the put��lic and b���;e its ;Trantin��r e�r PER. C�JRIAiv1.
tienis�l ��ri� th�� ,,�ecial ���xcc�;ii�>>i r>rr tii�ise� !'ind��i�s: {`i ��n p�t?tiurs .`or re�:,aring thE �;a:i:es ha�e ad-
Laney v. iIolrrook, 150 Fla. 6��, o �o?d 4f5, 1�#6 vised thss court that O:ange County has not taken
A.L.R. 202 (:942�; Vease �oard of Public Iii- iotmal saitable aotion deelaring �ts eleciior, to proceed
U 2013 Thomson Reuiers. No Claim to Ori�. US Gov. �Norks.
Page 5
299 So.2d 657
(Cite as: 299 So.2d 657)
under the provisions of Part II of the act entitled
County and Municipal Planning For Future Devel-
opment (163.160-163.315. F.5.1971, F.S.A.). Ac-
cordingly, the petitions for rehearing filed by the par-
ties are granted and we recede from all references in
our opinion of February 22, 1974, to the availability of
Section 163250, F.S.1971, F.S.A., in this case.
We maintain the view however, that the judgment
appealed from should be reversed with directions to
grant the writ of certiorari and to remand the cause to
the board of county commissioners for another de
novo hearing on the application for a special excep-
tion, at which time said board will have the oppor-
tunity to apply the balance-of-interests test to the
ev?dsnce �dduced before it. Thereafter, any aggrieved
party may have that decision reviewed by the circuit
court on petition for certiorari pursuant to the provi-
sions of Chapter 63-1716, Special Acts of Florida, as
amended.
WALDEN, MAGER and DOW�IEY, JJ., concnr.
F1a.App. 1974.
City of Apopka v. Orange Cow
299 So.2d 657
END OF DOCUN�ENT
�O 2G 13 Thomson Reuters. Na �.laim to Orig. US Gov. Worlcs.
Westlaw.
Page 1
537 So.2d 1040, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 141
(Cite as: 537 So.2d 1040)
�
t>h�ec:tio��� ��i� loc�31 residc:nt.v to condit��nal use
District Court of Appeal of Florida, p��r��ii� h�;sed n� f� � s ; tu in�,re<<r;G�d h af�t�ir� ;iifl n�t
Fifth Distric`. c�nst�nitr s�_�l7s�nnti.il co�npet�nr e�•icience required to
dciiy appliuutioli loi� c;oiiciitioiial u�e penrnt t�i Kasu-
FLOWERS BAKING CO., etc., Petitioner, 1ii�e pu��ip, arni �;a:�c�i�nt� s<ile,+ aiicillary� to pr��osecl
v.
con� e�lieiice stocc.
CITY OF MELBOLTRNE, Respondent.
*1041 Patricia K. Olney of Spielvogel and Goldman,
Nc. 88-139:. P.A., Merritt Island, for petitioner.
Jan. 5, 1989.
Reheariiig Denied Feb. 3, 1989. Andrew A. Graham and Maureen M. Matheson of
Reinman, Harrell, 5ilberhorn & Graham, i�elbourne,
Applicant petitioned far writ of certiorari, chal- for respordent. '
lenguig city council's denial of conditional use pernut
for gasoline pumps and gasoline sales ancillary to COWART, Judge.
proposed convenience store. The District CourC af Petitiener applied far � conditional use permit for
Appeai, Cov��art, J., held that objections of local resi- gasolin� pumps and gasoline sa:es ancillary to a pro-
dents to condiiionai use pennit based on fears as to pesed cent�er.ienc� store in the Cit}� of MPlbourne.
increased iraific uid not constitute substa�itial, com- Although the upp?i�a:�t agreed te mee± t� e city� zc�ing
pete:�t avidence requir�d to deny application for per- cod�'s eon�iir.'enal i;se rec�airemen�s for service sia-
rnii. t?er.s, ar_� aso agre�� to ai_? cf +.hP Pl?n.�ing �.nd Zon-
irU F?aare's sti��uict:c�, s, iccc�, resi�ents a��jecteG and
3�
lide CLLv GOlt!%�-7� d�r�ie�� L'tIF TJ�ITY1lt. 1�1C �p��i(;i11�t'g
��' i 1 i E�. �;Ilt°.C!.
j3�F1!_t0i1 �`O L�`.F ;;�Gll.'-.i �.�l�,t I71' 'c• Wl"1i Of ��eI't?Ol'31'i �V�S
C�PIl'sFt�.
Sham, CJ., �on���rred ir result onlv.
�Jr_ce ±ne appi?cant me± tnP i:utiai b��r�ea of
t�!<�.9: ��c=at�n:�,:es . .
SiG'�,4'Tl� i�l<tL i1�.$ 2cY�;]'�t��ill�%Ti IT?�t [LE'- CI°��PI'lc 7I s�1P, Clty
zo4?ii�g do_�� `��i g��s ti.,� ,ucIl a yertni±, ihe burden
w,:��a�� �_�g;d ��:��s�e��� ���e �'���� was �rl tlie zorang autY.cf°i��� tc, demcnstrate, l�y snb-
sta�lt?ai, _:ci�,pe*��r.t �;�,e.r:rce r,r�se;iiec at � pub�?c
�� t 4 Zo.ii.ig aiia �laruiirig ��euring a�ic :nade �a. oi �ile i�ecord, ±hat pet:tioner's
41�VI:I Pern�iEs, C�rt�fcatzs, anei Approvals upplicatio;i d;c' nc:t m�:;+ihe zoi:irg cc��e re�uirernen:s
� 1�'.�'IIi{F-_) I� ��n�ral an� #'iat th:, re:�ueste� �e.�i�t �:vas, i1 fact, a�ver�e to
4i4,:i�E3 .�ntotnobile-R�iated Uses the �u'�lic ir�ter�st. See I.� v��r�e �_nui°al Co��rat�, Plar-
4i�k1�b6 k. auto ser.�ic�/re*ai1 �tore t�?ri�� (,o%nr:�;i�s�o;i 4�?7 Su=d lh7 (t=1a,1?86`, c,�rna�
�:o�ibina�io�is. i���1os� �it?d Gases i,�g the d�:ss��ai ci Jud�e Z�hm�r ir It•vif2e i�. Da;���al
(Forrne:ly 414'::421) Cocu�tti� P?rn�ii�zg Cc;��;rissi^n, �'.66 So.2d 357 at 36�
�J 20 i 3'Thomsor. Re�ters: No Cl�im to OriQ. US G�v. ��Vorks:
Page 2
537 So.2d 1040, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 141
(Cite as: 53'� So.�d 1040)
Fla. lst DCA 1985). �Jhjc.ctions ���t' loc,al resiclei�is to
the conditi�,nal u.�e ��eriiiit based cm feai���. �is t« i��-
crcasecl tral�I�ic do uot consti[�_iir �ucl� suh�tantial,
�oni��eteiit evidence. See BML Inti�estments v. City� of
Casselher� 476 So.2d 713 (Fla. Sth DCA 1985), rev.
denied, 486 So.2d 595 (Fla.1985�.
WRIT GR�INTED. REMANDED to the circuit
coux with instructions to direct the issuance of the
conditional use permit.
DAITKSCH, J., concurs.
SHARP, C.J., concurs in result only.
F1a.App. 5 Dist.,1989.
Flowers Baking Co. v. City of 1Ylelbourne
537 So.2d 1040, 14 Fla. L,. Weekly 141
END OF DOCUMENT
C� 2013 T'homson Reuters. No C;laim to Orig. US Gc�v. �,�orks,
Westlavv
Page 1
627 So2d 586, 18 Fla. L. Weekly D2547
(Cite as: 627 So.2d 586)
� could be consideration in close case.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, j2], Zoning and Planning 4Y4 �1492
Fifth District.
414 Zoning and Planning
TQWI�; OF PONCE INLET, a Florida munic:pal 414Ix Variances and Exceptions
corporation, Petitioner, 414IX A In General
v . 414k1489 Architectural and Structural De-
Edmond R. RANCOURT and Paula Rancourt, hus- signs
band and wife, Respondents. 414k1492 k. Building or setback lines.
Most Cited Cases
No. 93-1667. (Formerly 414k�04)
Dec. 3, 1993.
I��ntlt��>� •.VC'r�� ilC>i � ��ii11c'(l �t ��iiCi�9u�C frnm
Town petitioned for w� cf certiorari seeking re- ��`�'�'�`� ��th�r,k orciinanc�, s� 1s fio perinit ��nstructiur�
view of order of the Circuit Court, Volusia County, �l ��it�iicJ �o�l enclosur� iiilo �i�ht-io�t side �e;tback
Richai•d B. Orfln�er, J., directing To�vn's board ef 't"�"""ta by c»��lii�an�c: , �1�7�"��;.;Ir ,u:��rhbo��i,lg I��i�d-
, ,��,,;,��.,,°4 �licl tloi C.iJjt•ci. l;ln(l,,AV�)ers uilil�]terall� vio-
adjustment to hold de novo hearing an landowners
�etit:on �or zoning varance. The lliat:ict Court oi !�t�ci :���ili��ancc by coristructing enclostire, and ail���ed
A��eal, Pate:sen, J., held that landow,iers were not �»'��'�'i�' ,i�tFez�ed by la�idowners ii` ���uiance «-as en-
entirle� to v�riance permitti�g cons+auction of pool fo��c��l �vas mere ez�nomic disad���uit�v�e tl�at �v<�s
enclos�:re.
:-cil-created.
; ,� �:t_�. U �
,, =�S�s ��o e� i.I. l���kiu o�weils c� ,`�'ggia, Y.A., nt�u
Pet�tion �r�ntecl; orde_r quas�iec�. --
`�1�:r'_� T. C_Y�r:i�l,�rski, I�a;�tora B��,ch, ior nefitioner.
West Headnotes �i
�?ter L?. Heebner o* Heehner, 13agget*.. Prec:��l an�
r11is, Dav�on� ���ch, for respondents.
i � i, ���in�� �:��i� �-E�i���Ei� a14 ������
PL%�R.�(:t_`�, Jt;dye.
41� Zcring and i Ian�u1L � ��,�,�:,�, �f �'onc:e Inlet (Town) petiti�rs £or a
�� ? 4iY Va�:anees ancl E�_ce�t�ons
-- v.� i•: o-� :�e.�i�ra*_°i .seeking review o�� the cir�;�it cc
�`f 14IX(A) I�i General order �ra�ting a wrr_t oi certiorari. The cu•cuit cotirr's
4141c1485 k. Consent or objection of others. , � ;.
— oru�,• directr°d thA Tosu�'s 3oard of �_c.�us�me�it tc hc:l�
Nlost Cited Cases
2 C�2 �iOVO �1�aTiT1E Oil t�12 �aliC011iiS� j7�ili16R fOi �i
(Formerly 414k�00) variar�ce of t;ze i owr�'s setback ordinance. VJe �rani
ihe Ta•.�:�'s pcu[ion aad uuash the circkit cuur� �;;rder.
�.greernc;nt of neighbors shoaic� n�t l�e sufiicieni
or sound basis to allow zonir.g variance although it The R3nsourts p�ir�.hased oceanfront property or
O�t)l:i Thomson �euters. No (`laim to Orig. LiS ('Tov. Works.
Page 2
627 So.2d 586, 18 Fla. L. Weekly D2547
(Cite as: 627 So.2d 586)
which was located a partially completed house. In 469 (F1a.1993) by specifically holding that an agency
completing the construction, they deviated from the would not be required to make findings of fact but that
plans submitted for the Town's issuance of a building t,n reG ic��; �,f �� qua5i-,ju�(i��i.al d�ci:,i��i� �i circuit court
permit by constructing a screened pool enclosure into ,��u�t cic�t��n��ine t�-heiher there wa� ec�iai�acterar 4��b-
the eight foot side setback required by section 700.09 �tai►tial cvidsiice preseiittd tu snppt>rt ihc <<�=��nc��'.5
of the Town's ocdinance 85-27. After receiving a no- �Ieci�i�,u The basis far the circuit ceurt's decision in
tice of violation the Rancourts filed an application for the instant case was the agency's failure to make
a variance to allow the encroachment. findings of fact. The trial court properly relied on this
*S�R court`s then-existing decision in Snyder, but both
(��u� in�z til�� hc�iri�t�- <m tl��� ��,�i•i�nce ���licatinn, the trial court and this court must now follow the
lettera fr�m t��� neighh�rG were si�h�uii���i urEli� �ji�ng standard later reestablished by the supreme court, that
a��,:.�n�:��: �,�� ��I�j�:=cti..?ns a�icl lta�icourts' eotriscl arouzd is, whether there was substantial evidence to support
tliat thcy �voula �u11e.;� ��cniio�«ic l�ardship il� d�ic en- the denial of the variance.
t�rc���� Ii�n��nt �����:; rcialo��ed and lhat remov�iri� tl�e c�;
�;i���a�;hnient �w;�i_il�l G:xp�se llie p��ol lo ihe elen�enfs. [ l,� Tn ",' �:;� - , `r;�a .' �! i o e� ��i 1041
�an�lidlv a�imirte�l tl�i:it ihe locatio�� 01� ih�� �nclosurc; lFin.i��, the suprem� c��urt LC1J tl�at a�.�rerec�ui��ite
��vas;i °`�nnl(e°rofpei_�oi�al prefer.:nee"��ncl that ifii �ti�a,, tr �1i,� _�a;itia��� vi <t zc�nrn�; �.�<�ririi�cc� is the ����scncc <,f
c�t�nd��d c�illy lu thc r��o[ lui�� of t}�<, hotis�, tftc �x�<,1 ��G� ;.�-��l,ii��n�i1 <ui�i ni�ic��_�t h�ircl;;l�i�>. �l�lic i��i�clshi��
���niiicl havc pmtectTnn �lihou«h ihc� r,i�:c �,f il«� us„l�,le � ���n��r,� I,�� r,��I�'crc;itec{. Josephson v. Autrey° 96 So.2d
�vul area vvvuld b:; r��iucec:. 784 (Fia.1957). ��`izc itt�rdsiti�� t;r�nnc;i I�;: ou�_ r.�i� zitcre
�'('f}Ilt'rty3l�' ��itill(�1-1?Il'f.i?1'P. C22 L�/1C'll"C�l?n�l!�YI �!ICl�L'
� Relying upon th±s court'� dec;sion in Sn��cle�° v. Countv v. Rei���n�Cc��34:� S�2d 379�F1a. 3d DCA
Bocrrd o,f�C�unr � Cona';�s of�B;�el�af•d Cou�zt7- Fla 595 19g 1); Berraer° King v. ��Ictropolitcri� Dade Coerntv 349
So.'d GS iFla. Sth DCA .991�, cre circuit ccut-t So.2d 210 (F?a. 3d DC� I.977), appeal di�m'd., 355
granted the a�a��lication fi�t• tLe w� Iu Snyder thi� So•'d 5�' F� �a• 1a�8�. '
co��rt b.eld ihat a rezonin� decision is subject to close �
�llC�>�?11 Sl'1'Lft1�1)/ ti7:C� t�".8t Pi�P,�L1V� �UCIICI3� PP�'1?W, � i i�.� �'l�i(1 �".%j�;'t1Ce S','1S j,iaeP;�tf'.� t('• T}?e �;Oc7?'C� Of
COil,tlt'.1�1�113� G�?;i, ::i:`C�9�, arlC� ��tAi%S' C>SEIl`,I?1 1�- i'�(i�U�ilTiCiil i"t1 tI1C IllSI£t�l? CEiSC' nl��Ci' i.111t1 C�1C 11u1�;h-
i � i
�?11YG'L'1EI�?i Of 1?si' i�i,�Uiir a�'>ti�t�;l�li,1C�3 a��i1Cy `lo SGL�S' �t,itC1"� '.y126t�'itl�? �aCk O� O�,tC'GiiOR, piClttP�J� C)f
state reascns f�r its ac±ion an�? t� malce �ndi�g� of tl�c 1?ancoints' prnp�,rty, aiid sectioi� 1003 01 oF tl.�
fact. �+Te also �he1�? tha± ±re init�a� barden is on a �onin� orciiiiance, The re�ord indicates that on� ��Cthc:
IaF1�Cti✓.1P,2` tG ��I"F1:lliSfc'��U f�a� �t?.i a� GOtTl_ �30s1C({ i]7Lii7��'I'S CZVIeII�CC� [I](', 1`k.(�llll'Cillellr5 Oj 52C°iLTI
}
�I1FS G�ltil fi�E i'E'itesJri�CS�(� �7:t7C,°v�t�s?'31 i� Of �l){)�.l)1 �A'�I1C�1 IIlllSl E)f Ii1C') �)P,�i)I�.', ii 1'z t1i1P(:F �„
the ct•diriitnc� a�ic� is �cnsist�t�t �vith th� c�mprehen- nrnni��d. �n�l iemarke�l (hat ncnF� ��f the rec�uirein�nts
SIVE ��11!� US� ��ct'. UIlOt1 �ri�'ft1;1f� t'fllS �1LiI`C�eIl, t�11S �I�ls{ hi'e:l iTi2t ih!P <`i��et; C�;�l l�t r�iil'._s '�1?Clli; ":�•it' iiC`t
coui hel� � t��at � la.ndown�r i� ;�r�sam�;tivel; eniitie� ��:�t:
to ase his pro�;erty in ihe riain�e� s�ught unless the
a.gcnc}� asserts ��.d �ro>res Ly ;,I�a`r ar.� convincing rN l. Ti,� n�rePrner�t ��f n?ic�h} �ho2ild not
evlder�ce that a �pecifically �tate� pu�lic neeessity b�� a sullicicnt or .���uncl b��,is tu all.���� a�.�ar-
reqair�s a mo_e ?�estretive ese. iancr alili�>u��:h it � ould bc a consider��t�on in a
� lo c<asc. Fdei_�hhor� ��ncl ili�;�ir ailiitt�?es
The supreme court partially reversed Snyder in ch�nnc fr�m time to time �ahile the variance
Bourcl o�C'ountv Cor�2naissio;ie�•s v, Sn 627 So.2d au�s n�t. Ol��eciiuns oi iici�libor� Liave bcen
C� �013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. TJS (Tc�v. Vvarks.
Page 3
627 So.2d 586, 18 Fla. L. Weekly D2547
(Cite as: 627 So.2d 5�6)
de�rni�inctl t�� be insul�hcien� t�� �ieii�- <i z<„��- sel[' cre-itecl.
in� �p�licatioii. Poll«i°cl ti�. Pcilm Beach
�c.�t�«v, �bU So.2d 1358 (Fla. 4th DCA 4. No evidence was presented to suppo� the fnal_
1990); Citv of'Apop�-a 1�. Oranae Coacntv 299 two requirements that the variance be the minimum
So.2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). necessary to allow reasonable use and that granting
it would be in harmony with the general intent of the
1. The first requirement is that there mus± be a spe- zoning ordinance.
cial condition peculiar to the land or building not
applicable to others in the same zoning classifica- Accardingly, we quash the circuit court's order
tion. The Rancourts argued that they had an ap- and grant the Town's petition.
proved wall constructed within the setback area.
However, this was not unique because it appears pETITI�N GRAI�]TED; ORDER QUASHED.
that the ordinance allows a wall within the setback
area for sirnilarly zoned property.
Ht1.R_R_IS, C.J., and DIAMANTIS, J., concur.
?. T,�,. :,c=�.i �r:y��;�i:�i�ctti �n il�i�� Ih�. ;;�;ecitil cr
dition must not resul� t'rom the applicanT's aeEiuns. F1a.App. 5 Dist.,1993.
77tc i'.t�iu;�»iri> i�rlmiflcil (l��ii (lic ���,r�i; ,.�x'I��.tiure
Town of Ponce Inlet v. Rancourt
<lid noi e:�isi ����Itt�u �li�y puich�l,c�l (li�� ��,������ i", th,�t 627 So.2d 5�6, 18 Fla. L. Weekly D2547
thc ��ppm��ed E�Ians did not sllo��� tl�c � u��l��s�u�e�. �3nd
il,�it �����,�u ,i ��.:;�; ��. ,�,��� ��,�,n�_r.1�it. A�dit:on�lly, I�1r. END OF L�OCUMEI�TT
Rancourt had developed other property in tne te�x�r.
ar.d he should have been familia: witr. the zonir,g
ar�iinances. Tl�� >,��x:���ial crn�r?iti�n reqiiirin� �he
;�ari�i,i<�.e �icc_urred as a�iircc� rc:,i�lt ��I� li?_� I'txn��ourts'
uuilaler'<il �nd tmataih����i�:e�l �i�:iic�n in �°tolz�tion ot'tlte
existint �<?nin� c�r�liii�,��ce.
3. �'he third reqiiirement i� that lit?ral ;�te?�^r,�t::�ior:
cri� ttic ordivarice �S�c�:ilc! ����urk ��n un�tc�essui; alia
!inciue h��d,(iip o�� 11ie [Zanco�z�C�, de�rivin_� iheu? oi I
!_i;;hl5 c��t_imrntl� �nioye.l b�� ��ilters oC ili:, s_iai�c
2oniu��� � 1<�s��:ii�ic<�.tion. TLc Rau�;ouris ar<�ueci �;nly
tf��u (h�� e!x ]o:;nrc �t�a� airea�y in piacc an,a Thit tr�-v
wouid st�.t�er cconomic�ily i�' �eUUircci ��� r�,?i��c �i.
Ttiey further initialiy az�gi�ed tl�_at t�i�� pool co�,�ic' n�t
be screened if' the existing enclosnre was disal-
lowed; this ai•gument was later modi+_ whe�i it
was admittect that the nool could still be enclosed
bt�t tn2t it �.✓oulu' result ?n sev�ral feet cf "unusable"
lanc� between a rear enclos��re a��1 ±��e w�l�. �1,��
arniimPnt fail�. hecau�e th� hard�hi�+ �.���s �ne of
iiie�� ecoiio,i�ic ui5aci�aiilaK� ai��i b�c;au�� �i �,tias
O"J.i)"l3 Thoms�n Reuters: No Cla?m to nrig. US c;�v �Vorks.
Westlaw.
Page 1
721 So.2d 1212, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D39
(C'ite as: 721 So.2d 1218)
� Trial court failed to apply the correct law in
granting landowners' petition for certiorari and
District Court of Appeal of Florida, quashing city council resolution denying a zoning
First District. variance, based on court's finding that certain other
The CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, and The City property owners had received a variance, since prior
Council of the Ci±y of Jacksonville, Petitioners, grant of variances to others was not appropriate con-
v.
sideration under applicable local zoning ordinance,
Clarence Joseph TAYLOR, Sr. and Deborah M. and court misread the case law which it cited as au-
Taylor, Respondents. thority for principle that the grant of a variance to a
neighbor was a relevant factor for consideration.
No. 97-39 i 0.
Dec. 17, 1998. L], �oning arnd I'lanning 4fl4 �1'�56
Cit ,,utioned for writ of certiorari to review 414 Zoning anc� plarning
Y �'' �
circuit court order that quashed a city council resolu- 414X �udicial Review or �elief
tion denying a zoning variance. The District Court of 414X E Further Review
Appeal, Van Nortu�ick J., �Lld that: (1} ��;�i,7;� �,�,�ni �,F 4141c1755 Determination and Disposition
,,� �,; � 41�k1756 k. In z�leraL Most Citea
�tr�i;�ilcr ., E�c't��ltb� �� ,��,�<t:� ;u�i i�;l�,l�az;t I<�� i��t �<�T — g
. n���r:icl,�ratinn nu<i�,�r 1;ij�r�icahl�.• I.o��ai :soitliid uicti-
C,�SPS
nunc�:. an� (2) trial ce��rt's failure to ap�ly correct law (Farnerly414k749)
resulie�� in misr.�rriage of jus�ice warranting certiorari
re?i�f. _Tn uuashina ��iiy counci] resoh�tior_ denying a
z�a�.i�g varia7c� tri.�.? cc;t�i'� legai e:ror in faiiing to
Yerit:on �r� r_t?d. a�ply t:�.e cc;;,�ct iaw res�;ited in a zni�cairiage oi' j,�s-
�:ioe, ti�:�s wa�rar� .g ce-t?oYari re?:ef.
i3entoil, �., c�ricurreci in the result. i
*±��� �h�ro�; R. Pa_rks, :�s�?start General Cour_se.l,
Oi`fice of �i?r.er�1_ (;ounsel, 3acicsonvii�e, for Ueti-
�%+;'e.;�€ �'OiCjriO�fS
`li�I1G; S.
;_1, �:z�.ss�� 2a?:� ���a��'_bfl3 �41� '`%�14(� � teve>> ;�iet,encw c,f Rugecs, Towers I3aile �, ,;ones c4�
Gay, : ac;':.c5aii-,��!i�, !E�i �tespor�d�,rts.
4 i4 L�ni*:g are Yi_arLn:ng
414.IX Variances and Exceptions
— VAi 7 NC7RT��.✓iCT.;, J.
414IX(ai �n Gener�l T�he Cit �f .�acicsonviile +' + r
y_ peaticns �or a writ o�
414k1455 k. Nature and necessity : r. �er ��rtiorari r� rev�eti� ari �.rc�er ef rhe cin:uit co�:rt which
;�ul. P�.�Iosi i=iiec C'� �es
grantecl tne pet?tion i:�r a ���rit ;?f certiorari ef re-
(For.�erly 11 �k4 �� 1)
spondents, Clarence Taylor, Sr., and Deborah M.
"! and overturn�c? a City Cc�.ncil res�lution
O 2013 Thomson Reuters. I�Io Claim *c �rio. LTS Gcv. `�Jnrks.
Page 2
721 So.2d 1212, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D39
(Cite as: 721 So.2d 1212)
denying a zoning variance. For the reasons that follow,
we grant the petition. The Taylors thereafter petitioned for a writ of
certiorari in the circuit court. Certiorari was granted on
Mr. Taylor inherited two contiguous, five acre the fmding that there was no competent, substantial
parcels of land in a rural area of Duval County which evidence to support the Council's fmdings. The circuit
he and his wife wished to sell. Each of these parcels court discussed at length the law regarding ihe grant of
lacked frontage on a public or an approved private a zoning variance and the facts of the instant case as
road, but were instead accessible by way of an ease- established in the record. The circuit court ruled that
ment that had been previously granted. Without the Council misapplied the gove_rning crf teria and that
frontage on a private or approved public road, the the Taylors had demonstrated an entitlement to a
parcels are not in conformity with local zoning regu- variance. The Council's resolution was thereby
lations. The Taylors sought, and received from the quashed.
City Planning Commission, a zoning variance which
permitted zero road frontage on both parcels. In The City of Jacks�nville now seeks certiorari re-
granting the variance, the Planning Commission*1213 lief arguing that the circuit court departed from the
acted contrary to the rec�mmendation of the City's essential requirements of law when it applied the
Planning and Development Department. incorrect law, by shifting the burden of pr�of to the
City and by considering evidentiary matters not con-
A local resident sought an appeal of the final or- trolling and when the circuit court reweighed the ev-
der of the Planning Commis�ion with the City Coun- idence presented to tt�e Planning Commission and the
cil, which referred the matter ta its Land Use and City Council. As we recently explained in Citv of
Zoning Committee. After a publ?c hearing, the Land Jacksonl�ille Beach v. tLlarisol Land 1?ei�. Inc., 706
Use and Zoning Co:nmittee of the �ity Council voted So.2d 354 (FIa. lst DCA 19gg):
to overturn the variance, A resalution m�m�rializing
the vote was later entered by #I�ie � ity Council. By il�iis The siandard of review in certiora�i pro�eedings in a
resohrtion, the City Council adoptecl the fmdings a.nd district court of a�tpeal "�uher: it re� Jiews thP ci.*c���t
conclusio�?s of th� Land CJse and Z,�nin� Cammittee, court's o�der under Fiori�'a Rule of .�r eiiate Pto_
which ul turn l�ac?� adopted the fLidin�s and conclu- cedure 9.030(b)(?}(g) ... �las �r:-ly ��� dis:�riet
sions ot Pla:uung an� �evelep.nent �epa�-i��ent �s comnc,nents." Ed7 catio:n L�ev. C'tr-,. lnc. ,. Cih- n`'
�u � ----�C
stated in ;ts report. — lYest Pc� Becrch Zunin� E�. of�t,vNeals � 4 i � o.2cs
?06, 108 (F oirtitied). "T'he; ir.�
r�l l. Vdhi?e tt Planrung i;�snrnzs�i�n is re- quiry is lit:,ited to �vhe�her t��e �i:c��it c�,�i: aTfi�rded
sponsible for re riewi�g and h�lding a pubiic procedural due process ar3 w�cther +�z `i�cu�t caurt
hearing j�ith res�ect to Fach �pplicatiou f�r a applied the correct law." I�Uines Cih- Co rranz�.e nitv
va,�iancy ���i the z�nin� c�de �n� issues Dev. v. H���s. 658 So.ec 5?3, 530 (FIa.1995);
�rders grat�ii�a or denying the variance, Comhs v. Utate 436 Su ?d 93 (Fla.l�.�53).
pursuant to section 656.132, Gity of Jack-
sonville Zoning Code, a de novo review of a In Heggs, the snpretne court reiterate�i thL dis-
decision of tiie Planning Commission is to be tinction it drew in Comb� i�. Stcrte, 436 So.2d 93
cc�rducted by tre Ci±y C;ouncil upon �roper jFla.19831, between the c�rtic�rari standard o`r:�v?ew
a�plication. Se.e § 656.142, �'ode of the Cit� and the standard used in reviewing Iegal erro� an ap-
of Jacksonville. peal. As the supreme court expl�ined in !'ombs,
�O 2U13 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Wo*ks.
Page 3
721 So.2d 1212, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D39
(Cite as: 721 So.Bd 1212)
depariure from the controlling law proscribing spot
[T]he phrase "departure from the essential re- zoning. In fact, the Bird—Kendall court found the
quirements of law" should not be narrowly con- rezoning, which allowed the property owner to operate
strued so as to apply only to violations which ef- a feed store, so distasteful that the term "spot zoning"
fectively deny appellate review or which pertain to was deemed inadequate. Instead, Judge Schwartz,
the regularity of the procedure. In granting writs of writing for the court, suggested that the terms
common-lnw c.ertiorari, the clistrict courts of appeal "melanoma zoning" or "melazoning" would be more
should not be as concerned with the mere existence appropriate. Id. at fn. ].; see also Metropolit«n Dade
of �legal error as much as with the seriousness of the Countv v. Blurr�erzthcal 675 So.2d 598_(Fla. 3d DCA
error. Since it is impossible to list all possible errors 1995 ; Citv of Dania r. Florida Poi��er c�c Ligl�t, 718
serious enough to constitute a departure from the So?d 813 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(the reviewing court's
essential requirements of law, the district courts failure to grant certiorari relief "where a single circuit
must be allowed a large degree of discretion so that court judge sitting in his appellate capacity disre-
they may iudge each case individually. The district garded substantial competent evidence relied on by a
courts should exercise this discretion only when governmental entity in making a zoning decision ...
there has been a violation of clec�rly establish�� could, in itself, constitute a miscarriage of justice.").
principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of jus- Further, in Cin- ofJacksonville v. Marisol, 706 So.2d
tice. ... The district courts should use this discretion at 356, we granted certiorari relief because the circuit
cautiously so as to averi the possibility of common court failed to apply the correct law. Although the
law certiorari being used as a veiucle to obtairi a Marisol p�nel did not discuss �Nheth�r a miscar:�iage of
second a_ppeal. justice occurred as a result of the misapplication of
law, the nec�.ssary, if implicit, holding in Marisol is
Cumbs, �36 So.2d at 95-96 (emphasis added}, that the faihire to apply the correct law there, by itself',
quoted zn Heggs, 558 Sa2d at 528. Tl�e supreme eaurt constituted a miscarriage of_justice.
adde� in ueggs that a"reviewing court is d! a�uin� �?e�v
lines and setting judtcial policy as it ir_div�d?ialJy de- i� I lu d�e, ii��st�iui �ase. iiz� l��ti����r �:��urt ��miiarAy
ter�nir�es tkose e�rors suffic�eritly �gre�i�us or fi�n- f��il::d t�� a�,a�i�� �he c���rcct (��ti.v in iis t�r�ez� �raiiting ��
�a�licriial i.G ti1CT:ti tllP f:XLC3 P0V1C�J aT.�CI '�e�y.� 8a��� Abrti itt Ce1�1�1�'I'3tF, ttiE ICiW�?' C011l"I SL�I�Ci ;11:2[ (�1�=
u�_�ci r�viae;i b certi��rari." Hc��?>, �75 �o.2�i at 1�>kylor;' ���
� . �. - �% Y � --- —
SZQ,
(�i(�}�CCI}� I7R; L)71iC(LiC7 fltl(� �ii'l;ll�l(11� !:(I�Ci13t'it:f��?'tCeS
�
�1�C i)[17=35� ` �TillSGR:71a!r� C�f�t1�C1i,N. i1S �� �.�i�r�!��: � �'�11�'71 C(P1�2 till I17111CCl:SSiti1� 811(j ,�Jli�liF. �tai'('�i :L7
8 Z6I1111� C�iS'. }12S IlOt �"J�.'f:Tl eX�T�'SS�S' ;�PftTl."i:. f2t �.)�;�'l:;i; :��i!1�(ili31t�11t_ C1Cl)j�c.�i�c;� flti`�C �F�!Cc.{l,t' I�_:_
�?>ycl—I��nr_f�rll Yor a��olntae ys r2ss�c. i�. lvfetror�;ttara ;:ci��cd t�i��:ntiral z�;iiin�� ��lu �.icc ,tn�l ��-i11»ut i�l�-
� c'v_t'ot�rtri� L?,d_of_C.'ccr-rtl Co;��,hr'ts� 6`�_5 S� "'.i ��� �e:�.i�t: a�:aiiance alloej �nsJ devclop�nent or� iliti
�Fla. �d__GC�1 199"�, rev. �'Pni�d, Ga:°ci�a v. ��,c�r�:'rt;,�r�.�;ontpl�s[rly�,�.�,tl�lc:-rt��i(��,�l.iy�i��s]
Bird—Kencicrli H�jneowners Assn., 701__So.2d R67
��_a.1997�, t�le Tivrd District inc�icateu tha� a"fur.- Tii�_� f;��=1 Ehai ��crt��iu oih�°r rr�rertv �w�ners n,,ve
damenial deparlure from the controiling law" consti- recrr��ed � var�iance �s not ����usi�i��raiion under rhe
l?��� � 1:?:SCP:'ri2�� Of�JUSC1Ce. �!�2:1e t �OLI:'1 `�.i{ 410f ,.•.f�' i,l .�<.;.��.,�it;'� t��l t•ii��ii8t2Cl: :�%CrC, 1�1C ��t�:+: ;t�}�?�lE;�-
c�e�ine "fu�da�ne�tal �eparture," i=� icund that ���e re- �lc l�erc. .'. ;�u�i_.uc;: !� tc� bc �rranted, �,ursus.in� �o sec
zoning far business use of a.23 acre track located in tion �;56.1 3� ul' the ordinance code, "ouly rP' ir is
an area zoneci �ior agricultural use was a fundariiental ,ilt���v�i hy z� prepo�i�lera�icc� oi� evicience (i) ��h�it tf���
OO 2013 l homson Keuters, No Claim to Orig �7S Gov. Warks.
Page 4
721 So.2d 1212, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D39
(Cite as: 721 So.2d 1212)
property ha� uniq�ae �nd peculiar circlimst�nces which Heggs and Combs, we find that the error in the instant
crcate� au �innc: c,<<icy� a���i u�idue liardsl��i��� (ii) lliat a case is substantially similar to the legal errors deemed
vari�u�cc is ilie uii�iiiut�m iaecess<<r}� �o alle��iaic tli<�i a"misearriage of justice" in Marisol and
hardshi}�; (iii) tlaat ttic iiccd for a variancc is ��ut tlie Bird—Kendall. Although we acknowledge that the
�-esult �;f nc� actions o1� rf�ie 1>roper�y �>wnca�; (iv) that a holdings ofM�risol and Bird—Kendnll do not establish
variai�ce ��vould nc�t c��ea�e a<ietriineu� to adjacent and a sharp line for determining when a legal error, which
riearby propertie� or thc puhlic i��i ,=enca�al; (�-�) ilta� i lie could not be deemed harmless, results in a miscarriage
���riri��ric�� ���ili uot .�i�l�s��,��tially �iiininisl� E>ro}�crt�� �.�.�1- of justice, under those cases we are constrained to
ues or alter the �Pneral ch ,r<�rtr� ��F rlic o-,rc�, and �vi) grant certiorari relief here.
that llic effect oi` the variaiice is in harmony wi�h ihe
iiiterct of tlie. r�:;lc:����u�i arca «f ihe 1�:�uin<� ('��d, t��l>vi- Accordingly, we grant the petition for the writ of
ous(y. rhe lo���er coi.i��t's statE;iuent �f rh<° I,���� is ��ot certiorari, quash the order of the circuit court, and
c��n��isie.u� ���iih rhe I��c,,l zt,uinn ordin��ut,e. reinstate the resolution of the City Council.
In addition, the lower court misread the case law pppOVANO, J., concurs.
which it cited as autharity for the principle that the BENTON, J., coiicurs u result.
grant of a variance to a neighbor is a relevant factor for
consideration. In fact, one of the cases cited below, r1a.App. 1 Dist.,1998.
Herr�era r. Citr of��vlicr�7ii 600 So.2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA City of Jacksonville v. Taylor
1992), r�ev. dercied, Citv of �llia;�ai ti°. HeJ°J-era, 613 �21 So.2d 1212, 24 Fla. L. Weeky D39
So.?d_2 {FIa.l99?�, supports revers�l in the instant
case. The Herrera cottr� co: e�.plained that "���u
r����;��;.s, �,i� an x�d�n;nisirniivc �>r�i�it uC �� ����uins� ��.���a-
ENl7 OF DCCUri��;I'J'f
anci�- the sta�id�rcl is nu( �v1lei�he� 6��iriancc� l�ava
l�esiz ,t;ranred to siinil:iri, �i���7li�ants in �lie
ccuu,iiz��uty,..." %d. at 563. The re�uining authoiiey
cited by tne l��a�er �ol:: :�'_:e�=,�ise does not support its
cunsiracratiozi af t�?� z�:;�er;e� �rant <<f varian�es to
n��igi���oriti� ; rept_�t�:� c v�-���s. -<_'_nr.�paYe _F,1���1��� ti�. :'in
0��1l�Iicma�113 �o.2d �49 frl�. 3d li�:Fi_1y5� (abut-
ting 1 own�rs were entit:e� to challen�e t'r�e va-
li�iiiv ei a v�riar_ce �ncl ir or�jer �o ?�e er.iit?Pd to a
vari�r�ce :or *��l � t�trd: ?l:� ,.t is e�ser.tial that thar� i�
some excepii��,ai ar:_d ur�ique hardship to the :ndi-
��i�ual lanccwnPr whic'r, is not sha�•ed by the orher
�r�p.�v c�t,n,: _ in t;�e: ��re�}, a Zo � �(,:' �i,t �
of ' ���. . � � -,,, � �;�i�� i � � ,�)_ _'��I ?48
(; I.i `�i ' f' t_ ��,��(;� v�ui�uice is improper wl�en it is
�;��t<<�Iti [ur �;c,i�„�i,rc ,i�iv<tnt<<nc and when the h�rd�,liip
aileged is nui F!c�uli�i� �� ilic �.�ropc;rtv in que�,[ion)_
j21 Tn considering whether the legal error here
cens�itu±es a miscarriage of jizstice as required by
O� zGi3 Thomson keutex No Claim to i�ri�;. US Uov, Works.
��s�?dw
114 So.2d 357 Page 1
114 So.2d 357 ,
(Cite as: 114 So.2d 357)
� j2j �dj€�;r�irag �,an�advnee�s 1� �fl��1)
FONTAINEBT EAU H. CORP. v. FORTY-FIVE
TWENTY-FIVE, INC. 15 Adjoining Landowners
Fla.App. 3 Dist.,1959 15k10 1�ight to and Obstruction of Light, Air, or
View
District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District. 15k10 ( k. In General. Most Cited Cases
F'OIVTAINE�LEAU HOTEL CORP., a Florida cor- At common law, a lando�cmer had no legal right, in
poration, and Charnofree Corporation, a Florida cor- the absence of an easement or uninterrupted use and
poration, AppelIants, enjoyment for a period of 20 years, to unobstructed
�• light and air from the adjoining land.
FORTY-FIVE TWENTY-rIVE, INC., a Florida cor-
poration, Appellee. �.3j Easements 141 �Efl
1�10. 59-450.
141 Easements
Aug. 27, 1959. i41I Creation, Existence, and 1'ermination
Reheanng Denied Sept. 23 1959. 141k4 Prescription
l4ikl i k. Acquisition of Rights as to
Action to enjoin owners from continuing with con- �ight, Air, and ViQw. Most Cited Cases
struction of fourteen-story addition to the:r hotel nn a The _F_.ngl?sh doctrinA of "an�ient lights" has been un-
beach facing the Atlantic Ocean. The Circuit Court, animously repudiated in the United States.
Dade County Kobert H. Anderson, 7., entered ar. o:-
der tetnporarily enjoining owners from continuing .U. �djoi�ing g.anda��a�ers 15 �l�r(3}
witn the construction and they appealed. The District � 5 Ad�oining Landowners
C�u:t of Appeal held that where a stzuctu;e serves a
usefi�l and beneficial pur�;ose, it does n�t give rise tc f�k10 l�ight tc and Obstruction of �ight, .�ir, o;
a cause of action, either for damages c�r for an �n;unc- ����
tion un�e� the niaxirn sie f,�terP t�e us. aliena*n i�ori I Sk t 0 3, k. Motiv� in Er�cting Obstraction.
!aedas even th�ugh it c�us�s ;nj�?ry t n , ?�ost Cited Cases
> o a�_otl-er b; e��t-
t�ng cff the ?ight a�d �ir ar� ir.tyrierii� �•?.r ._h.e vie�d ��,� ��.; �'--i�l
i11r'lt G�./�UICl Oti7eIl�47�i, bE. aVdi1r143�f' Ov�( di�r.?1ri112� ±al`tC�.
1�? ItS t18il�raj S[E�tZ, i^�3:��eSS Gt` �jl�' i�Ca: r1�a' [�:C Llt.lri(UriCi:pr
structure may have been erected parrly for spite. Z 121I Si�bjects of ProtPctir�n and Rel�ef
21'ZIi "B �tatt�rs IZelatino to ?roperry
s2everse�i with di�ectia�is. �,,
�12k�5 Trespa�s o:• ��s;:yr I:�= to i�ea�
`��est ?�eacr�ottis Yro_�e�-ty
� ��Y@3f��1��I0S6.3. ��$i'd ��, �'�� ZiLiC51 �{. iZc'ill.OV'd� iii �Silaiieill�:�
°2 Constih�.tional La�=� F�nces, o;• �tn;r Stracfi�res, Nlost C;i�ed t;�s��s
� �4�liere � siruciure setves a usefi.�t an�� be;,e�:a,i�.i vur-
92V Pe:°sonal, Civi! and Pc:l:«cal �ight; '
92k8? k. Right to Acqu�re, Hcid ar_d Dispo;e
nose, it does not give rise to a,�usv �•f oc.�cn, �:t�:e:
for damages or for an inji.nction unde: t:�e maxim sic
of Prope�ty, ivtost ��ited t�a�e; -
utere tuo ut alienum non la�das e��en t�ou�h Zt
Th� maxirn sic ute�e tao ut alienum nor iaedas, does ' "`
* causes injury to another by cutting ofr the li�ht and
n�t �nean �hat one must never use t�is o�:i� piop�i in
such a �uay as io ��u any iilJziry to i1i� n�-igh�or, fjt t
�Ar �ud i?iterfe! �ng �Nitu :he eiew ��}�a± �uou1+� c��h�r�
��ise be ava:iaule o�-er a� la;ia in i�s nah�ral
riear.s �nly tE�at or•_e musi u�� t,is properiy so as no: state, regardless of the fact that the structure may
to injure the lawful rights of another. havP been erected partl;� for spite.
O 2007 Thomson!tiVest. Ne C'la�m to Orig: U.S. Uc��t. �Norks.
114 So.2d 357 Page 2
114 So.2d 357
(Cite as: 114 So.2d 357)
j5j, Zoning and Planning 414 �604 the construction of a fourteen-story addition to the
Fontainebleau Hotel, owned and operated by the ap-
414 Zoning and Planning pellants. Appellee, �laintiff below, owr.s the Eden
414X Judicial Review or Relief Roc Hot�l, which wa§ constructed in 1955, about a
414X(Cl Scope of Review year after the Fontainebleau, and adjoins the Fon-
14 1 In General tainebleau on the north. Both are luxury hotels, fa-
414k604 k. Amendment or Rezoning. cing the Atlantic Ocean, The proposed addition to to
Most Cited Cases Fontainebleau is being constructed twenty feet from
(Formerly268k63(1)) its north properly line, 130 feet from the mean high
If public policy demands that a landowner in the Water mark of the Atlantic Ocean, and 76 faet 8
Miami Beach area refrain from constructing build- inches from the ocean bulkhead line. The 14-story
ings on his premises that will cast a shadow on the tower will extend 160 feet above grade in height and
adjoining premises, and amendment of its compre- is 416 feet long from east to west. During the winter
hensive planning and zoning ordinance, applicable to months, from around two o'clock in the afternoon for
the public as a whole, is the means by which such the remainder of the day, the shadow of the addition
purpose should be achieved. will exte::d over the ca�ana, swimming pool, and
f� Injunciian 212 �113 sunbathing areas of the Eden Roc, which are located
�n the southsrn portion of its property.
212 Injunction
212ItI Actions for Injunctions In this action, plaintiff-appellee sought to enjoin the
212k113 k. Limitations and Laches. Most defendants-appellants from proceeding with the con-
Cited Cases struction of the addition to the Fontainebleau (it ap-
Where construction of a 14-story addition was pro- Pears to have been roughly eight stories high at the
ceedin under a ermit issued b the ci iirne suit was iiedj, alleging that the construction
g r p y ty pursuant to � interfere with ±he light and air on the beacl: in
mandate o. the District Court of Appea( in a previous fren± of the Eden Roc anu� cast a shadow of such size
action b�riveen owne:s of the addition and an adjoin-
- as to render the �rholly unfitted the and ----- -
?ng iandowner, and such mandate authorized comple- enjoyment ef its guests, to the irreparable injury of
tion of the addition according to plan showing a
76�foot setback from the ecean bulkhPad line and ad- the plaintiff fi:rther, that the c�nstn�ction of such ad-
' dition on th� nc�: �h side of defendants' pToperty, rather
jeining i�ndcr�mer`s objectior. to the distance of the
struc�u:e frcr,� the ocean was m�de for the first tin_e than :he soath si�e, was a�tuate� by mali;.e and i�l
in a suit to erjoin further work on the stru cture, un�1 �'�`� °n iiie part o# �l defendants' president toward
suci� suit was #iled almost a year after the beginning tk�e p�ainti�'s prasid°�1; an� tha? ti�e constn:ction w2s
in vioiaiion of a buil�iag ordinancz tequiring a
of tt:e canstruc�ion c�f the addition, at a time when it , ,
was rr�ughly eight steries in keight, ar,d represznte�
IC�-fo�t setbac�c frcm trte ace�r�. It was also alleged
�n ek�endithrz by owners of several million d,�llars,
that ihe can,tnzctia� ��euld interfere witii Yhe ease-
menis of ;ight a�d a?r enjayzd by plaintiff and its pre-
a�j�ir_ing lan;iowner sta*.ed no cause of action f�r
decessors in titie for more than twenty years and
equitabl� setief baszd on violation of setback require- °im�liedly grantetl by vi�tuE of the acts of the
:�ient �7 ar_ a�plicable ci..ty ordinance, even if tl r
�lain�i�fs preriLcessors in tiYle, as well as under the
was in fa�i a s iolation of such ordinance.
comznon Eaw and the expre�s recognition cf such
Sibley, Gn�sr.iark, Barkduli & King, Miami Beach, righis by virtue of vha�ter 9837 Laws of Flarid�
for appellanfs. 1923 ***.' Same attempt was a:so rnaae to allege an
Anderson & NadPau, iVliami, for appellee. easement �y imp!icaticn in fav�r of the piainYiifs
PER rT�I�1�:Y:. �rc;�erty, as the �.or:in�nt, and against the ciefendants`
Tnis is an iraterlocuory appeal from an order tempor- praperiy, as the s�n�ient, ten�ment.
aril� enjoining the appellants from continuing with *359 The defendan:s' answer denied the material al-
OO 2007 Thomson/West, No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Vl/orks.
114 So.2d 357 Page 3
114 So.2d 357
(�'flte as: 114 So.2d 357)
legations of the complaint, pleaded laches and es- dependent research has revealed none, in which it has
topped by judgment. been held that-in the absence of some contractual or
statutory obligation-a landowner has a legal right to
The chancellor heard considerable testimony on the the free flow of light and air across the adjoining land
issues made by the complaint and the answer and, as of his neighbor. Even at common law, the landowner
noted, entered a temporary injunction restraining the had no legal right, in the absence of an easement or
defendants from continuing with the construction of uninterrupted use and enjoyment for a period of 20
the addition. His reason for so doing was stated by years, to unobstructed light and air from the adjoining
hirn, in a memorandurn opinion, as follows: land. Blumberg v Weiss, 1941. 129 N.J.Eq. 34. 17
`In granting the temporary injunction in this case the A.2d 823: 1 Am.Jtir., Adjoining Landowners, § 51.
Court wishes to make several things very ciear. The And the English docYrine of `ancient lights' nas been
ruling is not based on any alleged presumptive title unanimously repudiated in this country. 1 Am.Jur.,
nor prescriptive right of the plaintiff to light and air Adjoinin� Landowners, § 49, p. 533; Lvnch v. Hill.
nor is it based on any deed restrictions nor recorded 1939. 24 De1.Ch. 86. 6 A.2d 614, overruling Clawson
plats in the title of the piaintiff nor of the defendant v. Primrose. 4 De1.Ch. 643.
nor oi any piat of record. It is not based on any zon-
ing ordinance nor on any provision of the building j,�4 There being, then, no legal right to the free flow
code of the City of Miami Beach n�r oii the decision of light and air from the adjoining iand, it is univer-
of any court, nis� prius or appellate. It is based solely sally held that where a structure serves a useful and
I ,;�,
on the proposition that no one h�as a right t� use his beneficial purpose, it �oes nct give :is� to a cause of a. y;
�rop�rty tc the iiijury of anuth�r. In t'r�is case it is action, either �'or damages or for a� injur.ctien under
clear from the evidence that the proposed use by the the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, even \ 1'�
�
Fontainebleau wili matei•ially darnage the Eden Roc. though it causes injury to anoiher by cutting off tne '
There is evidence indicat�n� tha± the construction of dight and ��r �nd �nterf�ring �=�ith the uievv that would '`,
the proposed annex by the Fontainebleau is malicious otherwise be a��ailable over adjoin:ng (aad in i±s nat- '
or deliberate for the purpose of injuring the Eden ural state, regardless of the fact tha± the struch�re may
Roc, but it is scarcely sufficient, sianding alone, to have been erecied partly for spite. See the cases col-
afford a basis for equitable ;eliei.' lected in t}ie anciata�io:, in 133 y.I,.i�. at p�. 701 et
seq.; I Am.Ju,, P.di;sini7� Lando�t�ers _�4,��_536;
jll This i� ;n:aee:i a n�vzl ;pp�icatioa of the �axim �=36� Taliaf�.rro v. Sa:ier. l�'S8. 16:: Csi.P�, n.2d E�S.
sic z:tere tl;n ur al,'e�um. r�,z /n.er;'c�s. Th�� :a°�axim dc�es 3�h_ 7y5 �YUsurnee� v. Lee,la��o. 1���� ,L. I,
a1C�� itleflll illiit Ci31P. t]Ci?t�� C`i�:l�r 1k5� tll� Ov�,�Ti tJiOi)t�'I�% III �55. 75 1�,��� 17� li3 -'SGIi�__ �,fi£lEll�icl(�:
SUCri � 4:�'3;' %E" t�• ti0 1?:� :��� i' ti"t '�iSS ?t�itiilfiG7'. �EC�C-
l ex.Civ.Ant�._,�._ > ; ? i? � . Vv'�c�_�c���,�t.�E��� ,;
man v. Iviarshali. F1a.195h 8� So.2d �5�. it means Tcnes 19�q '8° Ten�� 51 �16 c R%.2� 7?I• Lwtt: ��
o�ly that oric m,ust ase iiis �ro�z,�v s� as not to injure Kessler. 1 �596. 54 Oh;o S_'±.%?. 4� N.E: °'E5: K� ilb�t-
th� l�Yv�al rigl�!s ci �r�cth�r. C�sor, �� Flc� F�;wer sicv v. Zin.r,or.h. i9S��,��a( ��3i. :�O�r. 7? :�?�; .
Co,,�7�_F+a_ 1�7� 50 103� In �;;uthern Ad�_e��si�; C�„ t:h�:
�_ _ - �,���_-' � -
R�BVZI` b. I`� �Iart ir, '! �I 5' 5 �=.2d b82 Tenn.Anp.19�� ��
6�:7� 25 A.L.r`z.2�_ 14� ,1 ulde? this r:?axam, it was
tit�t'et� ie7,lt `It 1S VS%i.l� SFtilf'� Ti1fiT «�1rU(J�I� :�Wl:�i' ��V�e S�� I1G I"uS:�l; {OC (j?[�1T'fli1Q tTt�tT.l :{�ic ��r;i��ei_
may �at _'r,is own proper�y to any re�ssona�le and la�v- sal rule. I_`, as roiltend�c or bel:a�r of pl�i=..i�i:f, public
fuI use, so long as he does not the,reb_v deprive the ad- policy demands that a landowner in khe Miami Beach
joinir�g 1an�owner of ar;✓ �igi;t ot` er,j�yment �f tiis area refr�in i�or7 r:o�ictrtic�ir_�g buiidings ofi his
p�operty which is recognized ar:d prvtecte�l by Icnv, premises that a�ill cast a shadow oi, t� adjoining
and sc le.zg �s his use is �.ot sucl� a� o;ze as the latiti• premises, an amenement cf i;s cer:Ipreh�rsivc plar.�
w�%1 nrono�.nce 4� nT;isanc2.' ;Emr�ra`is �upplied.] ning anci zonir,g orciira�re, ap;�3?rabl� t� t!:e p�zb:iir_. as
a whole, is the means by which such purpose should
�2 3 No A,�ner:can decision :.as been cited, and in- be achieved. (No op�nion is expressea her� a� to the
�O 2C�? Tyomso:l/Wes�. Pdc Clair.i tc Orig. US. Go��t. VVo�;cs.
114 So.2d 357 Page 4
114 So.2d 357
(Cite as: 114 So.2d 357)
validity of such an ordinance, if one should be en- ance as expressed in the maxim sic utere tuo ut
acted pursuant to the requirements of law. Cf, Ci of alienum non laedas-for the order here reviewed is the
Miami Beach v. State ex rel. Fontainebleau Hotel allegeci violation by defendants of the setback line
Corp.. Fla.An+�.1959. 108 So.2d 614. 619: certiorari prescribed by ordinance. The plaintiff argues that the
denied, F1a.1959. 111 So.2d 437.1 But to change the ordinance applicable to the Use District in which
universal rule-and the custom followed in this state plaintiffs and defendants' properties are located, pre-
since its inception-that adjoining landowners have an scribing `a front yard having a depth of not less than
equal right under the law to build to the line of their one hundred (100) feet, measured from the ocean, **
respective tracts and to such a height as is desired by *,' should be and has been interpreted by the City's
them (:n the absence, of course, of building restric- zening inspector as requiring a setback of 100 feet
tions or regulations) amounts, in our opinion, to judi- from an established ocean bulkhead line. As noted
cial legislation. As stated in Musumeci v. Leonardo. above, the addition to the Fontainebleau is set back
supra [77 R.I. 255. 75 A.2d 177J, `So use your own only 76 feet 8 inches from the ocean bulkhead line,
as not to injure another's properiy is, indeed, a sound although it is 130 feet from the ocean measured from
and salutary principle for the promotion of justice, the mean high water mark.
but it may not and shou(d not be applied so as gratuit-
ously to confer upon an adjacent properly owner in- *361 �6j While the chancellor did not decide the
corporeal rights incidental to his ownership of land question of whether the setback ordinance had been
which the law does not sanction.' violated, it is our view that, even if there was such a
violation, the plaintiff �vould have no cause of action
We have also considered whether the order here re- against the defendants based on such violation. The
viewed may be sustained upon any other reasoning, application of simple mathematics to the sun studies
conformable to and consistent with the pleadings, re- filed in evidence by plaintiff in support of its claim
gardless of the erronecus reasoning upon which the demanstrates conctusively that to move the existing
order was acivaily based. See McGre�or v. Provideni strucii:re oack some 23 feet from the ocear� wauld
Trust Co. of Philadelphia, 119 Fla. 718, 162 So. 323. rnake no appreciable difference in the problem which
We have concluded that it cannot. is the subject of this controversy. Cf. Taliaferro v.
Salyer, supra. The construction of the 14-story addi-
The record affirmatively shows that no stabat�ry basis tion is proceeding under a permit issued by the cirv
:or the right sought t� be enforc$d by plaintiif ex.ists. �u*suant to the mandate of this court in Gity of
The so-call�� Shadow Ordina�ce enacted by the City Nliami I3each v. State ex reL rontainebleau Hotet
of IViiami Beacl at plaintiffs behest was heid in•✓aiid C�rp., supra, u�hich pennit authorizes ce�npletion a_f
in Ciy of Ivliami Leach v. Stat� �x rel. rontainebl�au the 14�story a�dition according to a�lan showing a
Hotel Coxp., suprz. I± a?so �f�rmatively a�pears that '7E_fuoc s�tback frotr. ihe acean bulkhea� l;ne.
there is no possible basis for holding that plaintifr has M�reover, the p?aintiffs objectioi� tc the distance af
2t� ea::emerit for light and air, eithe: express or ir7- ��:e strucEure from tIi;, ocean apnea;s tc have i�aen
pl=.'ed, �cross defendants' prope*ty, n�r an�j �rescript- fl�a�e �or the fi:st time in trie instant suit, which was
ive right itiereto-even if it be assumea, arguer�da, thai �led alrrrost a year after the beginning of the con-
the commen-law :ight of prescription as to `cncier�t struction of the addition, at a cime «+hen ii was
lights' is ;n effect ir� this stat�. AA�� from wliut vre ;:�ughly eight stories in neight, representing the zx-
have said heretof�re in this cpinion, it is perhaps su- pendiriir� by defendanis of several million dallars. In
perflLOUS to add that we h�ve no desir,°, to dissent t�ese circun;stances, it is our view that t�e pia:ntiff
from the unanimous holding in this cauntry repudiat- h�s statPd no cause of action for eauitab!e relief
ing the English doctrine of ancient lights. based on the viol�tior of the ordir.ance-ass�!ming, 2r�
;;uerldo, that there has been a violation.
The only other possible bas�s-and in fact, the onty
one insisted upon by plaintitt in its brief filed here, Since it affirmatively appears that the plaintiff has
other than its reliance upon the law of private nuis- n�t establishe� a cause of action against the defend-
�O 2067 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. L'.S. Go��. Works.
114 So.2d 357 Page 5
114 So.2d 357
(Cite as: 114 So.2d 357)
ants by reason of the structure here in question, the
order granting a temporary injunction should be and
it is her�by reversed with directions to dismiss the
complaint.
Reversed with directions.
HORTON, C. J., and CARROLL, CHAS., J., and
CABOT, TED, Associate Judge c�ncur.
Fla.App. 3 Dist.,1959
Fontainebleau Notel Corp. v. Porty-Five Twenty-
Five, Inc.
114 So.2d 357
END OF DOCUMENT
O 2007 Thomson/West. �Io Claim io Orig. U.S. Gov�t. W�rks.
�,�..
West?aw.
741 So.2d 619 Page 1
741 So.2d 619, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2222
(Cite as: 741 So.2d 619)
� A motion to dismiss a pleading seeking affirmative
Messett v. Cohen relief tests the legal sufficiency of the pleading; it ad-
FIa,App. 5 Dist.,1999. mits all well-pleaded allegations of the pleading to
which it is directed and asserts that the pleading does
District Court of Appeal of Florida,Fifth District, not state a cause of action on the grounds specified.
Timothy L. MESSETT, Appellant,
v. ,j2� Declaratory Judgment 118A �31�.1
Cynthia J. COHEN, a/k/a Cynthia Cohen, et al., Ap-
pellees. 118A Declaratory Judgment
No. 98-3389. 1 8AIII Proceedings
118AIII D Pleading
Sept. 24, 1999. 118Ak312 Complaint, Petition or Bill
118Ak312.1 k, In General. Most Cited
Landowner brought action against neighbors and Cases
county for declaratory judgment to prevPnt construc- The test of the sufficiency of a complaint for declar-
tion of house on vacant lot. The Circuit Court, atory judgment is not whether the plaintiff vvill suc-
Volusia County, Joseph G. Will, J., disrtaissed com- ceed in obtaining such a declaratory decre;, of rights
plaint. Landowner appealed. The District Court of in accordance with his theory, but whether he is en-
Appeal, Mihok, A.T., Associate Judge, held that: (1) titled to a dec(aration of rights at ai_l.
landowner lacked standing to claim that neighbor's
yuitclaim deed of vacant lot was invalid, and (2) the L3j Declaratory Judgment 118A �300
landowner had no legally recognizable interest in an
unobstructed view and, therefore, lacked standing to � l� Declaratory Judgment
challenge the cour�ty's decision to permit construc- 118AIII Proceedings
tion. 118AIII(Cl Parties
118Ak299 Proper Parties
Affirmed. l 18Ak304 k. Subjects of Retief ?n Gen-
West Headnc�tes eral. Most Cited Cases
[Y� Pretrial Procedure 3�7.a �622 Lanciowner lacked sta�ding to aursue his claim fGr
d�claratory judgment that neigh�or'� ��it�lairr: deed
30 iA Pretrial Proced�are of vacant iot to a third partv was enval�d, the
307AIIi Disrmissal landewner v✓as s�eking to �reveni �a;��tn.�c,ti�n c�f a
30 AIII B Involuntary P.isn-�issal resicence on the lot and ohstnictioi� of his view an�
307AIII B 4 Pleadeng, Defects In, in Gener- �ui�ed t� asseri a c�aim of right under �he deec. West`s
al F.S.�. �86.0
3U7Ak5i2 k. Irzsui�c:er_cy in Geraeral.
Must Ciied Cases jaj Zonir�g and Planring 41� �s°%E
Pretraal Proccdure �3(�'7r� ��5�+7 414 Zoning and Planning
414X Judicial Review or R�!ief
307A Pretrial Procedure 414X(Al In General
307AIII �ismissal 414k571 k, Right of Review. ivfasi Cited
307AIIi(B) Invoiuntary Dismissai Cases
307AIIIBlS Yroceedings and Effect County's decision permitting coastruc:ior. of a house
307Ak636 Matter� Deemed Admitt�d that ���uld allegedly �bstruct a r.eighbor's bea�hfronir
307tik6R'7 k. Well-Fleaded Pacts. view did not affect a legally recognizable interest,
Most Cited Cases and, thus, the neighbor lacked standing io challenge
�O 2007 Thomsc:l/V;�est. No Claim to'�rig. U.S. Govt. Works.
741 So.2d 619 Page 2
741 So.2d 619, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2222
(Cite as: 741 So.2d 619)
county's decision; the landowner had no right to an of the Cohen properties as well as Volusia County
unobstructed view. zoning regulations, Messett dete.nnined that the Co-
hen lot �vas not buildable for a stand alone residence,
!1 Adjoining Landowners 15 �10(1) FN2
I S Adjoir.ing Landowners F�, The complaint avers that Mr. Messett
15k10 Right to and Obstruction of Light, Air, or owns two lots also located on Bethune
View Beach, but the complaint does not establish
15k10(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases where the lots are located with regard to the
Lundowner had no right to unobshucted view of Cohen lots or whether the lots are de-
beachfront over neighbor's vacant lot and, therefore, veloped. Since Mr. Messett has character-
had no right to prevent construction of house on it. ized his injury as one of "obstructed view,"
Daniel J. Webster, Daytona Beach, for appellant. we assume that at least a portion of the Mes-
Dou�las M. Weaver, Assistant County Attorney, De- sett property lies across the road from the
land, for appellee County of Volusia. Cohen property.
Marv D. Hansen of Storch, Hansen & Monis, P.A., FN2. Mr. Messett's conclusion was based on
Daytona Beach, for appellee Cohen, the concept of "unity of title." He determ-
MIHOK, A.T., Associate Judge. ineci that under County zoning regulations, if
Timothy L. Messett appeals the trial court's order dis- Cynthia Cohen held title to both the Cahen
missing his declaratory judgment action against Cyn- lot and Cohen residence throughout 1986,
thia Conen, Marsha Cohen, and Volusia County. The she could not build on the Cohen lot without
trial court dismissed Mr. Messett's amended com- first oYtaining a variance.
plaint with �rejudice finding that he lacked standing
to mainta:n this declaratory judgment action. For the *�21 The cornplaint goes on to explain that, in May
reasons set ferth below, we affirm. 1497, Cyrithia Cohen, through her attomey, submit-
ted a:stter to :he County regarding the ownership of
By way of amended complaint, Mr. Messett, a xh� C9hen lpt. Th�s leiter, for the �rst time, made
landowner at Bethune Beach, fi]ed suit against Cyn- public reference to a quit ciaim deed from Cynthia
thia Cohen, Marsha Cohen, and Volusia Coun�y. The �'�hPr. to Marsha C�hen regarding the Cohen lot. The
com�Iaint explained that in I986 Cynthia Cohen a�it claim �?eed evidences an �xecution rlate of 3uly
ewned n�o zdjoining �ieces of p�ope�,� at Bethune a, �yg�� �,�t th� deed was not recorded ur�til July 8,
B��ch. One prop�rty was a vacant lot (Cohen (oil and � 9g?, � ietter �a�eu .i�;n� 25, 1497, t��e County ac-
�l:s c,-*.rPr pro�erty had been cieveloped wirh a s;nglv �owledged that it would recognize the legal opinion
famity residence (�o��en residencej. Th� C:ohen prop- set forth in th� o�1ay 2� ie[ter Srom Cynthia Lohen's
erty is apparen.ly Y�eachfront. iVlr. Messett a�Ieged attorney �h«t the Cohen �esidence and the Coh,,a, lot
t}�ae bef�r� he p�rchased h='s property, he snvestigated conipty «itn ;:e.tion 60o of ±he ��olusia County v�n-
the ownership of the Cohen property. F �' 1 i-Ie found
ing Grc?inanc.,.
that Cynthia Cohen held record title to the Cohen r•es-
idence an� Cohen lot and that she had paid the taxes Tt�e c�mplaint a:leged that as a result of the County's
on ia:se prope�ies. Hz also found that, ir, Ivfay 1992, iune 'l5 �et�imir_ation, tne �ohen lot is likely build-
C;�thia Cohen, as owner, made appiication to able far a stanci aian� residence and that th� construc-
Volusia County for a variwnce which woi.l� have per- tion af suc1: a re.�idence would "obstn�ct the viet�v of
mitted the cor.struction af a stand alone resi�ence on the Messeti propert;� and substantialiy damage and ir-
the vac�nt lot. This appticatian, which drew opposi- reparabiy harn; ivlessett." In its prayer for re(ief, khe
tion f a�joining landowne*s including Mr. 1Yzs- complain± re:�uest�d the t:izi court to adjudicate and
setYs pred�cessor in title, was withdra��n prior tc, declare (i) whether Cynthia Cohen's quit claim �eed
hearing. Based on his investigation of the ownership convey�ng the vac�nt lot to Marsha �ohen was inval-
�O 2007 Thomson/`JVest. No Claim to Orig. u.S. G�vt. �Jorks.
741 So.2d 619 Page 3
741 So.2d 619, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2222
(Cite as: 741 So.2d 619)
id, and (2) whether the action of the County authoriz- rights, status, or other equitable or legal relations are
ing Marsha Cohen to develop the vacant lot was im- affected by a... dee� ... may have deter!ninP� any
proper.� The Cohens and Volusia County ft!ed question or constniction or validity arising under
motions to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing such ,.. deed ... and obtain a declaration of rights,
that Mr. Messett lacked standing to pursue his claims status or other equitable or legal relations thereunder,
for relief. The triai court granted the motions and dis-
missed the amended complaint with prejudice. 85� 6•�21, F1a.Sta. (1997). In construing the meaning
of this provision, the second district has ntled that
FN3. Mr. Messett is obviously concerned "before a parly can bring suit under this statute he
that the yuit claim deed which purports to must ciaim some rights under the deed which he
negzte "unity of title" in Cynthia Cohen may seeks to have consirued." City of Pinellas Fark v.
not be legitimate. After the deed was accep- Matthews. 355 So.2d 475. 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978�.
ted by the County, Messett asserts that Mar- See also *622Bowden v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co..
sha Cohen can develop the lot without ob- 47 So.2d 786 (,FIa.1950�; Winters v. Alanco. Inc.. 435
taining a variance. So.2d 326�F1a. 2d DCA 1983�. Here, Mr. Messett
does not claim to be a party to the Cohen deed, nor is
CIlf21 A motion to dismiss a pleading seeking affirm- he claiming any right under the deed. He merely
ative relief tests the legal sufficiency of the pleading, claims that he possesses an interest which derivEs
See Azrgarstine v. Southern Bel[ Tel. & Tel. Co.. 91 from his status as being the owner of the property
So,2d 320 (F1a.1956,�. It admits all weil-pleaded al- which is apparently located across the road from the
legations of the pleadiag to �rhich i: is directed and Cohen properties. Based upon the facts alleged in the
asserts that the pleading does not state a cause of ac- amended complaint, the trial court properly con-
tion on the grounds specified. See Connollv v. Se- cluded that Mr. Messett lacked standing to pursue his
beco. Inc.. 89 So.2d 482 (F1a.1956�,. More specific- claim for deciaratory relief against the Cohens be-
ally as relat�d to the i�istant case, the "test of the suf- cause the c�mplaint fails te assert a claim eF any right
ftciency of a complaint for declaratory judgment is °`under the deed which he seeks to have conshued."
not whether the plaintiff will succeed in obtaining Ci�v of Pinella,s Park v. Mauhews. 355 So.2d at 476.
such a declaratory d�cree of rights in accordance with
his theo?y, but �vhetl:er he is entitled to a declaration j4.j Mr. Messet� s arr.ended c�r:ipiaint also set forch a
of rights at a11." Floridr� SYczte BoaYd o Dis ensir� claim f�r deciaratar rcii�� agsinst tl:� Cour.ry. The
O�tzciar,s v. Bayne. 2t�� Sa.2� 34. 36 (Fia. 2d DCA allegations �f the c�m�(ain� f�cus sotety upon the
196? _ Count��'s Jkn� 25 I997 �etei�ni� a:ic�r� that "iie C�nPn
p:operties do nnt fail s�vithzr tne �aram�:t�rs �� section
j31 Mr. Messett sought a declaration from tne triai 6�0.01 of the Cou�ty's Eat�d drvela�,��,2g code fo:
court �s to wh�dier �k:e quit cIaim decd which purpor- puiposes af develop!n�rt. Ir_ ?ts p:ayer fcr r�lief, the
ted to transfer �wn�.s1 �f the va�ant i�t frc�m Cyn- complair�t requ�st� ihe .nal co�r� io udj���i;,�ta an�i
tY:ia Cohen to ?viarsha Cohe� in J�aly 1�86 was valid. declare that th� C�3untv`s aetior via€aied Mr. �fes-
The triai cr�urt detezmined that the allega#ions set seti's due pr�cess rignis to r�ceive n��tice an.d a hear-
for±h in the complaint faiied to cemc�r.strate that Mr. �
Niessytt possessed standing t� cii�;Ilenge the validity
of the deed. The trial court was cenect. The r�:levant iss»e here is whe±h�r Mr. iVlessett pos-
sesses the requisit� standing to challenge the due nro-
Section So'.t�2! of the Florida Stahite.� �1497� pertains cess provisions of the �eunty's lar,d development
�o acti��zs fi(ed fnr aecIaratc�rv relief relating to a code. Mr. Messett claims tl as a neighboring prop-
deed: erty owner, �e shauld have beea given notiee and an
86.OZ1 Pcv�er t� co�sirue: opporiuniry to be heard bvfore the veu�ty issued its
Any person claiming to be interested or who may be opinion, in letter form, concluding that the Cohen
in doubt about his rights �1nde: a deed ... or whose properties do not fa[1 within the parameter� of section
G 2G07 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Wozks.
741 So.2d 619 Page 4
741 So.2d 619, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2222
(Cite as: 741 So.2d 619)
600.01 of the Counry's development code for pur- air and light from the adjoining land.); *623Fofz-
poses of development. In asserting his claim, Mr. tainehleuar 1-lotel Corp. v. Fortv-Five Twentv-Five.
Messett defines his injury as being that, if the Cohen Inc�114 So,2d 357 Fla. 3d DCA 1959�. (halding that
lot is developed, such development would "obstruct even at common law, the landowner had no legal
the view of the Messett property and substantially right in the absence of an easement to unobshucted
damage and irreparably harm Messett." light and air from the adjoining land). Accordingly,
since the only injury alleged in the amended com-
"A private citizen can seek redress for a violation of a plaint was the obstruction of his view, the trial court
municipal ordinance where he or she proves speciai was correct in dismissing Mr. Messett's claim against
damages differing in kind from the damages suffered the County for lack of standing.
by the community as a whole." Sse Ka��!n v. .We.rt.
677 So.2d 905. 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996�. In explain- AFFIRMED.
ing this "special damages" exception, our supreme
court has stated: DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
an aggrieved or adversely affected person having FIa.App. 5 Dist.,1999.
stailding to sue is a person wt�o has a legally recog- "�lessett v. Cehen
nizable interest which is or will be affected by the ac- 741 So.2d 619, 24 Fla. L. Weekiy D2222
tion of the zoning authority in question. The interest END OF DOCUMENT
may be one shared in common with a number of oth-
er memberc of the community as �vhere ar• enti: e
neighborhood is affected, but not evesy resident and
property owner of a municipality can, as a general
rule, clairn such an interest. An individual having
standing must have a definite interest exceedin; the
genera: interest in community good shared in cem-
mon with all citizens.
Renar�d v. Dacle Countv. 261 So.2d 832 (�'ia.1°?2�.
See also CIi1Z�'fi5' GI°ObVIjT Manu�ement Coa,lition �i
!�'✓est Palm Beach. Itt�. v. Cih� o,` W2st PG'rr: Bzareh.
Inc.. �'.50 �o.2d 2�4 i,Fla.l9��!l. Thus, in ��r�er fo°'�;r.
i�✓Iessett to d�!ri�nstrate t;ltst he }�osses�es s'4_�dic�� to
�.ir,;t�? a�eciaia�o.ry j a�ti�;�� agai: sF �ne
County, he is required to articuiate a le�ally recogniz-
a�1e i.ite:est wrich is or wiIl be aCfected by ti,e aciior.
af the zaning authoriry.
.�5] f\s noted ahuve, ;vtr. tv'iessett"; crly asse?�i:� ir-
jury was his c!aizn thai if ihe Coii�n !oi is deveioped
s��ch clevelopmert i�-o�1� ":�bsr. th�. :-i+.���� c��� er� ,
1Vlessvit prope;ty and si�bstantially d�.sr;�ge an_i i,xe�
parably hann IVYessett.'" f Io�i•e��er, a claim of
"obstructe� ��ie�ti� docs i�oi co.i�?it�te a "lega�ly :�-
cognizable interest." 5'ee 1 bK�n cf Indial�ntrc v.
lvunce. 40d So.2d 37. 41 F'1_a. �h r!��A 1981�, �`�l
�,�_So.2d 1041�FIa.198 )(holdink t� at in the ab-
sence oT some contractuai or statutory obligation, a
landowner has no absolute legal right te unobstructed
�J 2J0? Thomsor�U✓est. No Cizim ic Orig. U.S. Gcvt. \A�orl:s.
W�t1aW.
181 So.2d 599 Page 1
181 So.2d 599, 1966 A.M.C. 2462
(Cite as: 181 So.2d 599)
C PER CURIAM.
CITY OF MIAMI v. duPONT By this appeal the defendant City of Miami and the
FIa.App., 1966 intervenor-defendant Alice C. Wainwright seek re-
versal of a decree invaliciating an inflexible zoning
Distri�t Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. provision which restricted boathouses on residential
CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation of Flor- property to twenty feet in width, forty feet in depth
ida, and Alice C. Wainr�right, Appellants, and fifteen feet in height. The circumstances of the
°' case, and the legal propositions involved were set out
Willis dePONT and Miren duPont, his wife, Ap- in the comprehensivE final decree entered by the
pellees. chancellor as follows:
No. 65-391. `The plaintiffs instituted this action against the de-
I?ec. 28, 1965. fendant, City of Miami, as a suit in equity attacking
Rehearing Denied Jan. 26, 1966. the validity and constitutionality of certain sections of
the zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami.
Action attacking zoning ordinance. The Circuit Court `Section 22(1) and Section 22(4)(a) of Article IV of
for Dade County, Ray Pearson, J., entered a decree Ordinance 68?1 of the City of Miami limit the struc-
from which defendants appealed. The District Court �re of boathouses to fifteen (15) feet in height,
of Appeal held that inflexible zoning provision re- twenty (20 j feet in width and forty �40) feet in depth.
stricting size of boathouses on residential property The piaintiffs maintain by their Complaint that this is
was invalid as applied to plaintiffs who were devel- an unreasonable, discriminatory and arbitrary limita-
oping pr�perty as large, single farnily, estat€-type tion on the permissible size of a boathouse. The
complex, plairt;ffs cha=:lenge the constitutionality and validity
of these secti�ns per se anci, in zhe alternative, they
Affirmed. challenge the validity of the application of these sec-
West Headnotes tions to their property and the �ontemplated develop-
Zoning and Planning 414 G�62.1 ment of same. Ttie p(aintiffs contend that these sec-
tion� offend tt�� ea,ual pretection and due process
4l� Z�njng and P?anning c:auses of �he F'ourteenth Amendment of the Consti-
�1�IT b'ai:dit cf Zoning Regulations �stion of the Ueited States and Sections 1 and 12 of
�?1�1IJ�,B,}�. Regal2tions as to Particutar Matters t ie L�eciaratior, of Pights of the Constitution ef the
4' 4n�2 Architectural and Structural St�t� of' r ien.da, ;: . 5.�. Fira�i •, t, `�
y he p�aintir.� al?�ge
Designs; VaIue �hat thcy applied iar an� �rere d�niecl a veriance by
414k62.1 k. In Gener�l. Most Citec�, the City of Miami r IarLning ��� 7onir.g Bo2rb ansi
�-�� the Ci±;� Cc:r�missi�n :;f trie City oi A�iami and that
(Forr1°r'y 414k62 j tnis action w�s arb�t*a�� an� i�nproper.
I�fle;::bie zoning prc�•risicn restricting size of boat- `'The essentia( a�legatianc cf the ramplaint are denied
hoases on residertial ,nroperry was invali3 as applieci b_y thF defendant, City of i,�iami. The Court sub-
to ptaiatiffs ���hc �r�re developing property as large, sec�uently pe�;:ritted Aii;�e �J4�air.wrighi as a neighbo�-
singl� family, estate-type com�lex. ing property owner, io intervene as a narty defsndant.
,�„ This intezvenir.g party defendant likewise �iled and
a�s John R. Ba� City Atty., Edwara �. answ�r denying*6i10 thP esser.tial allegatir�ns of the
F:tz�atrick, Asst. City Atty., William W. CY;arles, Complaint.
I-Iorton & Sc�wzrtz, Miami, for appellants. `After ihe :ssues we;e jo�ned, the �`ou�t heard fhe
John 4✓. Prunty ivliami, for appYllees. evicience �resentec3 by the parties consisting princip-
Before CARROLL, BARKDULL and SWANN, J7. ally of expert testimony and numerous exhibits. The
�O 24Q? Thomson/��Jest. No Clai:n to O:ig. U.S. Gcvt. `.x'orks.
181 So.2d 599 Page 2
181 So.2d 599, 1966 A.M.C. 2462
(Cite as: 181 So.2d 599)
issues of law were orally argued by counsel for the cessory building by the defendant, City of Miami, no
various parties and memoranda of law were filed. other type of trarily restricted by the Zoning Ordin-
The Court has considered all the pleadings filed and ances of the City of Miami. In fact, the evidence
the evidence introduced, together with the argument showed that accessory structures for various uses,
and memoranda of counsel. other than for boathouses, could have been erected on
`The evidence disclosed that the plaintiffs are devel- the same site location as that of the plaintiffs' same
oping certain property which they own as a very site location as that of the plaintiffs' proposed boat-
large, single family estate-type complex. The prop- house, and that such accessory structures could have
erty being utilized consists of approximately five (5 j been of the same size and design as the proposed
acres and is located in the City of Miami in the boathouse structure.
Coconut Grove Section on Biscayne Bay and St. `It should further be noted that the zoning or3ir.ances
Gaudens Road. The property has a waterfrontage of of the City of Miami place no limitation or restriction
approximately two hundred twenty-five (225) feet on the size of a private boat which may be docked ad-
and extends from the Bay westward approximately jacent to private property, but when the boat is at-
eleven hundred feet (1100j. T'he estate will contain tempted to be placed in a covering or structure, the
shuctures having a totai of approximately thirty thou- inflexible restrictions set forth in Sections 22(I) and
sand (30,000) square feet of area and the develop- 22(4)(a), Article IV of Ordinance 6871 of the City of
ment will provide a full range of activities within the Miami forbids such us�.
estate area, all oriented toward the waterfront. The `The defendants have failed to produce any substan-
plaintiffs propose to erect a bcathouse on their prop- tial evidence indicating that any specia( pro'olEms ex-
eriy, thirty-eight (38) feet in whi�h, uinety•-six (96) ist with reference to boathouses which wouid require
feet in depth and twenty-four (24) feet in height. their strict limitation as to size. Moreover, the de-
`Plaintiffs' properiy is presentiy zoned R 1 B by the fendants have failed to show wherein boathouses pos-
City of Miami which nrovides certain minim��m re- sess some special characteristic*601 0` effect, dir-
quirements for a residence such us a?ot size not less ectly relatea to the public health, moral�, safety an�
than one hundred (100) feet by one hundred (100) general welfare of the public which would require
feet and a building not less than six hundred fifty the inflexible special treatment accorded to boat-
(650) square feet in area. houses by the sections referred to of Ordinance 6871.
`It was admitted by all parties thai �he cornprehensive `The Coconut Grove area wher� pIaintiifs' pruperty is
zoning ordinance �f t'r,e C;ty c�f Miarri mak�s no spe- located and upan which chey ��z erectirg ane oi ti�e
cific p:ovision fa: re�ider,tial estates and rias no �ec- largest estate type devei�pments withir_ the i�st
t�on dealing entir?ly with an esta:�-t���e de��el�pment, twenry (20) years, is a unic;�e �n1 i� tere�iirg ccm-
whaterfront or ots er��vise. I�everti:eiess, the plairtiffs mzinity. This area is amo:�g t'rze �l�zst secii.e�s of :1��
have been cenfr�ntP� with restri CtF0i1S wriir_.?� ��U�d City of 1�liami, J�in� one af t:,� frs� i�cat?ons foun-
never have been inter.d�r1 for such pstate-size resi�l- ded ard establish�d by the pi�neer settlers �f Da�E
ences. Caunty. It has always e�joyF� a uniq�eness an� �
`The chall�r.ged �ec;tio,.s of �::e Cirv �f i�4iami Zon- cornforta6le bzckground uf cultucv an� natural
ing Grdinance prr�vide ar'�itrary size I:mitations fur beauty. The citizens who have made thei;• hornes in
boathouse strucrares as set f�rth iii plaintiffs' Com- this ar:,a have, for many years, zealously safzguardEd
plaint, to-���t: twenty �20} feei i7 u°idt?� iarty (40) the natural and aestheFic values abounding ir, this
feet �n depth and fiftEen (i5) feet :n re;ght. These neighborhood. It is evident tha� these �actors ied �he
limitatione app15J to aI� res:derxtial classificatiar_s an3 plaintiffs to select their propers.y and erece their larg�
are imposed witho�t any consideratien ar relationshi_p estate in this particu(ar locale. It is further app2rent
to the size, location or us? of the praperty inv�lved or th2t the plaintiffc are as a:ixinus ss th� defendar.ts to
to the size zn�1 type of dwellin� a�d cther stn:cr,�res presene the area as a fin� harr�e c�mrn�ar:ity.
placed the,eon. `Anyone who res+des in the Greacer i�liami Arva ap-
`While the boathouse structure is considered an ac- preciates the beauty of the waterways and the views
OO 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
I 81 So.2d 599 Page 3
181 So.2d 599, 1966 A.M.C. 2462
(Cite as: 1�1 So.2d 599)
offered by Biscayne Bay and this Court feels that tures thereon. This inflexible limitation emphasizes
every precaution should be taken to protect the matter the arbitrary and discriminatory aspect of the sections
of view and aesthekic considerations with respect to of the ordinznce under attack. Th� Court further finds
the Bay and waterways of the area within the pro- that the sections of the ordinance *602 complained of
scriptions of the law. However, no individual has a have no relation to the health, safety, morals or wel-
vested right to view, light or air space across neigh- fare of the public and therefore cannot be justified
boring or adjacent property. In fact, convincing evid- under the police powers of the state. The Court fur-
ence was introduced to the effect that accessory ther finds that the said Sections 22(1) and 22(4)(a)
buildings of a different character or type than a boat- have been arbitrarily and unreasonably applied to
house could be erected in the subject locations of the plaintiffs' property and that the plaintiffs have fully
same general design as the proposed boathouse which exhausted all their administrative remedies prior to
would have the same effect upon view, light and air instituting this action. Therefore, it is
as the proposed boathouse structure. `Considered, Ordered and Decreed as follows:
`The defendants have not demonstrated to the satis- `l. That the Court has jurisdiction of the parties and
faction of this Court that the erection of a boathouse the subject matter.
of the size, character and design proposed hy ths `2, That the equities ar� with the plaintiffs and the
plaintiffs will destroy the view from adjacent prop- plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought in their
eriy of Biscayne Bay or will have a detrimental im- Complaint.
pact on the Coconut Grove Area. To the contrary, the `3. That Subsections (1) and (4)(a) of Section 22, Art-
evidence indicated that the pretentious development icle IV of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
of the plaintiffs is of such a nature that it will make a Miami are hereby determined and declared to be ar-
substantial contribution to the beauty and uniqueness bitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable, unconstitution-
of not only the Coconut Grove area, but of the entire � a1, invalid and voi� and of ne further force and effect.
Greater Miami Area. `4. That Subsections (I) and (4)(aj oi Seciion 22 oi
`Several witnesses on behalf of the defer.dants testi- Article TV of Ordinance 6871 of the Code of Or3in-
fied that good planning demanded that there be some ances of the Ciry of Miami are hereby determined
relationship between the size of the property to be and declared to be arbitrary, discriminatory, unreas-
utilized for improvement and the size of the structure onahle, invalid, unconstitutional and void and of ne
to be erected. In fact, witr�esses on behalf of the Cit�� fu�her force and effect as applied to glaintiffs' pr�p-
�f Miami admitted that the ord+_nance under ettack erty ane� the �ropo�ed development ther�on as set
provided an arbitr�ry limitation �n the size oi boat- iorth in �'•_ai��ti�fs' Com�la;nt.
hous�s which pres�nted a p:oblem reeding modifca- `s. Thai t��e defend�nt, City of Miami its agei�ts, ser-
zior, �n� this prob1em was presently� un�er study �y v�r:ts, employv,,�, c,ffcia!s a�d officers, boards ac?�
Yhe �rufessional planning peopie �f rhe City af c•ommissiar.s 2re h�rsby restr2ined and enjeined from
iviiar.ii. in any�,�ise int�rtenng witn the coastructior, and erec-
`Iia �ir:v af tl.e above, the Court finds that Sectio�►s tion by tl�e piainti`�s u�or: th�: gro�erty of the
22(1) and 22(4)(a?, .4rticle IV of Ordinance 6R7? af plairtiffs of �}�e boa±hc,use s#�ucrure proposed in ac-
the Code of Ordinances of the City of hiiami ny cordarc� with the plans and specifications referred to
si�gling out boathouse an� placing rest�iutic�as an the in pl�intifFs' Complaint set forth in this cause.
size af boathouses not so placed on other acces�cry `6, i ha� this Court shali retain jurisdiction of the
structur�s has �reated an arbitrary, unreasonable and parties and snGj�ct matter for the purpose of entering
discri:ninator�r c�assif cation for beathouse stracrares. sucli orders �.s shall be necessary to carry out the �ro-
The Court furthe; finds that the restrict;ons cn boae- visions �f this decree.'
house sir�uctu:es �re so inflexible as to ruie out any
r«:la�ions'r►ip between the size of the noathouse and The app�lI�ats' brief submi�s the foll�wing point:
the size, locatian and use of the properly involved, or 'w��tner, upon Appiicable Princip(es of i.aw, and
the size and character of the dwelling and other struc- the Testimony Presented, the Chancellor Erred in De-
OO 2007 Thomso�i/West. No Claitr, to ^v��g. U.S. iro �✓�rks.
181 So.2d 599 Page 4
181 So.2d 599, 1966 A.M.C. 2462
(Cite as: 181 So.2d 599)
termining That the Boathouse Size Restrictions in the
City of Miami Zoning Ordinance Are Invalid in Toto
and As applied to the dePont Property.'
On consideration thereof in the light of the record and
briefs, we conclude that the chancellor correctly dis-
posed of the questions of law applicable to the case,
and that no reversible error has been made to appear.
Affirmed.
FIa.App., 1966
City of Miami v. duPont
181 So.2d 599, 1966 A.M.C. 2462
END OF DOCUMENT
OO 20�J7 Thomsor/4�Vest. No Claim to Orig. TJ.S. �ovt. �.Norks.
TA� S
TI-�E SUNSHINE LAW
��a�u�es «. �u��u�u���n : v�ew �ia�u�es : vnime �unsmne nttp:iiwww.leg.s[a[e.n.usistatutes/maex.c�m!Hpp_moae=liispiay �rat...
Select Year: 2012 Go
'The 20�2 Florida Statutes
Title XIX Chapter 286 View Entire Chapter
PUBLIC BUSINESS p�gLIC BUSINESS: MISCELL/�,NEOUS PRGVISIONS
286>019 Public meetings and records; p�!blic insp2�tiar�; criminal �nd c:vil pQnaltieso—
(1 },�i,� n�"��;,,;�. r; �.�,��, {��;:�r�i r„ ;,,,�;;,- ;;��,,i of any state agency or authority or of any agency or
authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision, except as otherwise provided in
the Constitution, including meetings with or attended by any person elected to such board or commission,
bUt Wh0 hdS IIOt y2t tdkefl Off10E :.. .,( 1_�i� �('i� 1�," .� �; �- i�) }_ .�;; It d;�� ;i-�CI<��; LI i,�� Itir' �;iil�lii.
ti� r t_Tlis' •��. �? � ill.—' i t� '1�4 �l� C.lfllE.'S. 8i1C� i70 I��?�,��t1;l�rit, l�lrli�, �ii it)(1113� [��tl�il Sha�� �t Ct)i1�l:�i.'��-'d
��ai 1C�Itl� �_�t�i L�t ��V l�3iC:l� Ui� liZti,�� =1i s<<� fi ii�� t7;? �. �iIC' 4Jl'JdIU Uf l.Wi11f���_l:.'�I �i�l �)i 'I�f� i,��li(}1��11)�•�
Ilcil{C.i J� �at� �U(.fl illC.'::tltl�i.
��f T��c. t{Iliildt l?I ii IE�c."�l I' . .?i t;.. � ._ i I..._"j'�t^ C?f �n� '.i � 1 .
j .>.�� � =i�. , ��,, , ;�� ������- .;�y
Siluit i1c �:i vlilrl�; .__?; �:'..1� dli� SU�iI f z�vi �S ��ldll �c uj.c:i: C�� �:��i=li< �I, �` _� �L��. T'rie circuit courts oi this
state shall have jurisdiction to issue injunctions to enforce the purposes of this section upon application
by any citizen of this state.
� � - �.,..,.� .. . .,
� si�rl��l : it � .. , .�� '..IF� , ,� ! , � . .2!'f�? nf t�t7•- o, . !iri�i , � �Iit i II���Ii:il I11ii��it t ICJI'1,
F1Uill�ildut� �iy ililt.' IiO� c'XC�2(ilil� �`31Ji;.
f.f�) ;'!Il`/ ��c 1��hi, t�. �a 1112t11�E't �`?f � kC�ar�� ��I" COfTII"f11SSl'Ofl Or nt ?ny c±�+a ?oor;�. .^�i" -it_ii �1t?flt'1 �'?T dCl�/
-�,_ :
C�llf1$V. iTtlJilft l�)�i !"t?CC�nf'�t�C�CI, OC �OliCit_di ail�,ili`. ,�i_)i1 ?�hl? Kll��b`diitvly Viti�di.�5 �tlf' �71"nV151c�119 Q1 �h1S '�
C�"'C1.i:;F} ��) i! ii'i �i.i.`l � ;'i �1.. il i; i(.f iV � u�..�vi ��l �?..c' .`; l ° ; � ...��; . ,
r.. _ (�i, i. �� ��l ;.�1�., j3't U'v 15 l'rfiJ tl�� � I'� yCillf;v UT a
;��S�d��n�eanar or ine sc�oi�� de;�ee, pur;isha�te �s previ�e� ir s. ?75.082 or s. 77�.G83,
�C� �OII�U���. V�(�11Cr1 Uc:CUI"$ Cl.i�$'.C'� i�i :ita'.`�? , JV�"iic��l VJOi1:C� .�'.Oi15'titU�E d E�.I;OWIIi� ✓IJ�d�lOtl C:t �f�15 5��''�s0:";
is � rn�sdemearor of the 5ec��nc� de,re�, ����i;�:.a�le as p��;�ic�ed ii� s. 77�.��2 r�r s. 775.��?.
��j 4 'V�1CCt2'✓�f �;l d�t��?li !ld� �E'P.li fi�a�'; �3d��l�r cal'y �f'di"C� OP" %G�IC?'1i:�1011 �i di't;� `+tc�,t� d��liC`f 71"
dUt'.�lC�l"lty CJC �llY d�PllC)% Cf" d';.ltf1�1'1.fV p� ._�fij t:'�i„int�i� i,�iir�l,l� r�� COC(J:7idti0�1� �f �JiltiCa� SU�?iji1�1�;U!"i iG
E,'�l{f7fC? t�l� h?i'OV1510r5 O` tf115 ;i�::�iC��i CC t0 l::Vi36?C`��L 'Eft� dC.�?Cl�� Oi �Ily' S'..IC�I �;O�CCj� C�7t�lfTil�Si(lil i�.,'_��;�C`�
t:l" �1i.���i0ill�/, YVh1Ch d;tidil Wd� �a�?ti irl 'd1�Jl�L? C)i �i1iS �2C?lOtl, und �he court cizt �i"lill;lES ;ila� �i?r'
ci��end�nt �; de�f�n�arits L� su�h acrio� a� te-� in vio.ae����� �i th?s s�e�i�n ��he cr�urt ���a�t �ssess a
i�c+SCrufJ�F c�tLCl"�l�}�''� ieE� :i�dtii5� 54:� h&�;'^C)/, dI1C� iTa;% �SSLSS x i c''�SOnd��.2 d�iC)I"�l�'jJ �E`? F+�al�?�t tir�
individuat filin� suci� an ac�io�� i� the c�urt f�nds �Y vdas f�ted ir bac faith ot was friv;�icus. A�y iees sr,
d�5d"�5�� i7]�� �G-' c15S?5S?�j dgo�li�� t�?� ?il`Ej1VIC�Ud� I�i?17i�?�C CJi' I�iE'fTl�°YS Ci such boarJ or c�m ?'1'53�0:'i3
;��ovided, i'riat in any ease wi��ere Tre ���ard or c�mn;iss�or� seeks ihe advice c�i its attarn�y ai?d such
advic;P is foltcw�d, no s��ch `ePs shatl. b? �ss�sspc! �gains± thR inaividual member or me:nbe�s cf th� �-Jo�rr�
or commission. �i�w.ever, this s�abs�ctior sh�tt not a�; ;y t� a sra�e a*t�rney or his or he; d�ly authcr�z�d
assistants or any officer charged with enforcing the provisions of this section.
(5) Wf�en�ver any �oa� d or cornr�ission of ai �y state agen�y o� autho� ity or any agency or auihorifiy of
any county, rrunicipal corporatiar�, or political subdivis�an a�p�als any couri order vdhich �ias found said
board, commission, agency, or authority to have vi�lated this section, and such order is affirmeo, �h�
i_ of �
5% 2': PR�i
�ta�u«� «. ���,�u�u«��� . ���W JLCtIUIGJ . V1ll111C JUI1J1llI1C n�p:iiwww.ieg.state.ri.usistatutes�muex.cmi!App_moae=liisptay �tat...
court shall assess a reasonable attorney's fee for the appeal against such board, commission, agency, or
authority. Any fees so assessed may be assessed against the individual member or members of such board
or commission; provided, that in any case where the board or commission seeks the advice of its attorney
and such advice is followed, no such fees shall be assessed against the individual member or members of
the board or commission.
(6) All persons subject to subsection (1) are prohibited from holding meetings at any facili±y or
location which discriminates on the basis of sex, age, race, creed, color, origin, or economic status or
which operates in such a manner as to unreasonably restrict public access to such a facility.
(7) Whenever any member of any board or commission of any state agency or authority or any agency
or authoriLy of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision is charged with a violation of
this section and is subsequently acquitted, the board or commission is �uthorized to reimburse said
member for any portion of his or her reasonable attorney's fees.
(8) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), any board or commission of any state agency or
authority or any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision, and
the chief administrative or executive officer ofi the governmental entity, may meet in private with the
entity's attorney to discuss pending litigation to which the entity is presently a party before a court or
administrative agency, provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) Ths entitv's attorney shall advise the entity at a public mesting that he or shA desires advice
concerning the litigation.
(b) Th� subject matte� of the meeting shall be confined to settle�rent r�egotiations or strategy
sessions related to litigation expenditures.
(c) The entire session shall be recorded by a certified court rep�rter. The rep�rter shall record the
times of commencement and termination of the session, all discussian and praceedin�s, the names of att
persons �resent at any time, and the names of al! p�rsons sp�aking. No �,orti�n of the session shatl be �ff
thE recaru. The c�urt reporter's nc�tes shall be fully transcribed and fiied with the entity's clerk wi�hin a
•reasonubiz time after the meeting.
(d) The erti±y s�ia[L gi�ie re�sonable p�btic notice af the fime and �ate �f th� attorney-client ses�ion
an� the nam�s ci p�rscns who wilt be attending the session. The s�ssi�r shatt eommence at an cpen
meeti;�g �t whi�h tl�e persons cha�rir�g the mez*ing sh�lt ann�u��e the commei�cemA; and estimatea
leneth of tn� a��Urney=ci�er;t s�ssion an� the names of the pers�rs �tcen�iri;. A� fhe conc!usion of the
atterne��-client session the meeting shal! be re�peneC, ar,a th� ��rson chairina the meetin� sha!l
announce the termination of the session. V
�ei ?�ha t� �r,s�_ript sh�l� Ue made part of the �ubiic rec�r� upo:i �er�cl�asi�r� c� �he tit�gation.
Histo�;.—s. 1, c�. b7-35b; s. 159 ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 78-365; s, 6, cn. S5-:;�1; s. ?3, ::h, ?i-224; s.', ch. 93-232; s. 210,
ch. 95-148; s. 1, ch. 95-353; s. 2, th. 2012-25.
r ----- - __ ��---- ---
� C�pyright O i995-2013 The Florida Legislature F Priva�v Siatement • Contact Us
>, of 2 5%2/2013 2:24 ►'M
T1�� b
ST�TE OF FLOI�IDA
CODE OF ETHICS �ND VOTII�TG
COI�TFI�ICT L1�WS
JIRlUl4J cx. �,vi�u�uuvii . vicw ��a�u�w . viuiiic �u.t�iuitc n�:iiwww.ieg.srate.u.l�.sisramtesiinaex.ctm�r.vpp_moae=L�ispiay_�tat...
Select Year: 2012 Go
The 201� Florida S tatute s
Title XIX Chapter 286 View Entire Chapter
PUBLIC BUSINESS pUBLIC BUSINESS: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISI�NS
2R6.012 Voting requirement at meetings of governrrzer�tal bodies.— ��c; r??:�rri��r �;f any state,
county, or m��ni�:ipal ;�,v�rnniPntal bcsar�l, ccmm�ssior, o� age��cy ���iio is j�reseni a% any i�i�etin� c�f �riy
�uch body at whic_h an �fficial decision, ruling, or other off�cial act is to be taken or adopted mav abstain
from voting in re�ard ic, any such decisiun, ruling, ��� �ct; and ���ote sh�ii ���� �r-co��1�d c3� to!��,'r.��t: ior
E�ach such member present, except when, with resp��t to at�y SuCh rlten there is, or appefirs cr� bF, a
possibte �:�nflict oi inte�est under the provisions of s. 112.311, s. 112.313, or s. 112.3143. In such cases,
said member shall comply with the disclosure requirements of s. 112.3143.
History.—s. 1, ch. 72-311; s. 9, ch, 75-"L08; s, 2, ch. $4-357; s. 13, ch. 94-277.
Cop�; right o 1995-2013 The Florida Legislature � Privacv Stateme�t ��'antact Us �
1 of 1 si2/20I3 2:22 Prd
JCCL6ULG5 OL 1.V11JL1LUL1V11 : V1CW Jl'd.LUlCS : VIll1RC JUTLSllllle http://www.leg.state.Tl.us/statutes/mdex.cimYApp_mode=llisplay Stat...
Select Year: 2012 Go
'I'he 201� Florida Statutes
Title X Chapter 112 View Entire
PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, pUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: Ch apter
AND RECORDS GEIVERAL PROVISI01�!S
112.3143 Voting conflicts.—
(1) As used in this section:
(a) "Public officer" includes any person elected or appointed to hold office in any agency, including
any person serving on an advisory body.
(b) "Relative" means any father, mother son, d�ughter, husband wife, brother, sister, father-in-!a�v,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, or daughter-in-law.
(2) No state public officer is prohi5ited from vating in ar� official capa�ity on any matter. i�o�vever,
�ny state public officer voting in an c�fficial capacity uaor. any measure which v�ould inure to th� officer's
spzcial p�ivate gain �r toss; which he or sP�e knows would inure to the speciai private gain ar ioss of any
principal by whom the officer is retained or to the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate
principal by which thP officer is retained; or which the officer knows �vould inure to the special private
gain or loss of a relative or business ass�ciate of the public officer shall, within 15 days after th� vote
occurs, disclose the na�u� e of his cr her interest as � pubtic record ii� a rnemorandurrm filed with the
person resaonsible for recording the minutes oT the meeting, who shal[ incorporate the memaranc�um in
the minutes.
(3)(a) �!o co�nty, municipa;, or other t�:.al �u�li� office� �halt vote �n an �ificial ca�aci�y uGOr a�y
measurE which �voul� inure ta hi� or h�r s��eciai pr�vUte gain or tass; wh�ch he cr shp Kn�ws wdu!c in��re
to t��e sri�4iat priv�ta �dltl OY �O�S Uf �Cl� �:C?�i!_��a� ��' wi�am he or she 15 C�tdlfiLi� O�' i0 i4'l.� �)�1leiii
�rgani�ation ot� sui�sidiary of :.� ecrncra�� �� i�,4;pal �y whi�:h he or she rs retaine�, ct��er thGn ��� �,�n�.y a�
��fin4�' ;n �. 1�2.3�2(2); a� �vh��.h h; �~ 5�:� k:ncw, F•��o��ld i��!�i�e :o th� sp��ia; privut� ;ain �r ;�ss of a
re��t�ve �r bas�ness assc�r,iat� o� �re �u�li% o�fee°. :���ch rubt;c office: shail, prior tic the v�t� t�i,i�
taken, ��abli�.ly sta�� ro tf�n Zs�er���y th� i�att�r�e e{ �h� o{f:��er's irter;st in the mat're; irc,ni rv�iirh� he o: �
S�l° i� absta�ning frcm �;OCi"t� �iii�, W?t�:lil '�� �"��y5 c�,i�Si' �I?2 VOtz OCCUrS, C#15c`�GS�' t�1P Ci��U' �� �'1S �J! f�?2!"
irterest as a put�lic r2cord in a iremcrandurn fil��d �vith the person � esponsible for r?c��r�ing th� rr;ir,uie��:
c?f �he m�eL�ng, wh�� sha�l inc+�rrorai� th4 rt�enoi andur» �n � he minutes.
(b} However, a corrimiss;on2� oi a co�nmur�ity redevelo�r�ent agenr_y �r�ar_ed o� c�esi�nated pursuani:
�e s. 1�3.3�6 or s. 163.3�7, cr an office�� +�f ar� inde��?ridant special tax districi �lected on a�r�v��ere,
one-vote basis, is not proh�uite�i from vating, v�her� ��or.�n� in s�id capacity.
(4) No appoirted pu�lic officer sh�!( participate in ar�y matter whi�h would irur� to ihe officer's
specia! privace gair or loss; �r✓hi�h the officer �:rov✓s would inure to tre spe�ia! F,�i��ate ;a�r ��r l:,s; cf ar;y
principal by whom he or she is retained ar io tf j�are�it o���anizaiic�ri or subsidiary of a corporate
�irincipal by whicn he or she is retained; or whictj ne or she knows woutd inure to the special pr ivate ��in
or loss of a retative or busii�ess associate of tre �iublic ofiicer, without first disctosing the narure of nis ar
her interest in the matter.
l o± 2 �; 3 U2013 5:13 P:�1
o��u�cs « w�,��uu��uu : v�cw ��a�u�es : vn��ne �unsrune nttp:��www.teg.state.tl.usistatutes/mdex.chn'!App_moae=l�isplay_�tat..
(a) Such disclosure, indicatin� the nature of the conflict, shall be made in a written memorandum
filed with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, prior ta the meeting in which
consideration of the matter will take place, and shall be incorporated into the minutes. Any such
memorandum shall become a public record upon filing, shall immediately be provided to the other
members of the agency, and shall be read publicly at the next meeting held subsequent to the filing of
this written memorandum.
(b) !n the event that disclos�re has not been made prior to the meeting or thai any confEict is
unknown prior to the meeting, the disclosure shatl be made oralty at the meeting Jvhei� i[ becomPS known
that a conflict exists. A written memorandum disclosing the nature of the conflict shall th�n be filed
within 15 days after the oral disclosure with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meetino and shall be incorporated into the minutes of the meeting at �n�hich the oral disc,osure was
made. Any such memorandum shall become a public record upon filii��, shall immediately be provided to
the other members of the agency, and shall be read publicly at the next meeting held subsequer�t lo the
filing of this written memorandum.
(c) For purposes of this subsection, the term "participate" means any attempt to influence the
decision by oral or written communication, whether niade by it�e oificer ur at ihe of'iicer's dir�c"tion.
(5) Whenever a public officer or former public officer is being considered for appointment or
r�a�pointment to pub!ic office, th� appointing body shal! consider the numbzr and nature of the
memoranda of conflict previously filed under this section by said �fficer.
Flist�ry.—s. 6, ch. ?5-208; s. 2, ch. &�-318; s. 1, ch. 84-357; s. Z, ch. 86 1�'8; s. 5, ch. 91-8�; s. 3, ch. 94-277; s. 1408, ch.
95-147; s. 43, ch. 99-2.
I Copyright o 1995-2013 The Florida Legislature � P� ivacy St � Cc�ntact U s
� — ------- -- — ---- --- -------
2 nf2 5/31/2013 5:13 P149
FLt�RIDA ��M�ISSION t�N ETHI�S
I
GUIDE to the
��T�TS���T� �M�I�������T
and
���E af ��"�iIC�
fQ� �u��ic �fficers and Ernpla�e�s
Zt� 12
State af Florida
GC�MMISSIaN �N ETHICS
, ,
���
Robert J. Sniffen, Chair
Tallahassee
Susan Horovitz Maurer, Vice Chair
Ft. Lauderdale
Morgan R. Bentley
Sarasota
I. Martin Ford
Vero Beach
Jean M. Larsen
Port �t. Lucie
L[`nda M. �ok�i�on
PQmpar�o B�ach
Esl�nrin Sc..�Ees, !It
Key West
�/irtinc�ia Doss
Executi��e L?irect�r
P.O. Drawer 15709
Tallahassee, FL 3231?-5?t}9
www.ethics.s�ate.fl. us
(850) 488-7864*
*P{ease direct all requests far infarmation to this number.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. HISTORY OF FLORIDA'S ETHICS LAWS .........................................................................•••--................1
II. ROLE OF THE COMMISSION ON ETHICS ................................................•--..........................................1
III. THE ETH�CS LAWS ..................•--•-•.-................,.............,._..............._._..,.................................._................2
A. PROHIBI'I"ED ACTIONS OR CONDUCT .............................................................................................2
l. Solicitation or Acceptance of Gifts ...................................................................................••--...............2
2. Unauthorized Compensalion ................................................................................................................2
3. �Iisuse of Public Position ............................•........................................................................................3
4. Disclosure or Use of Certain Information ..........................................•-................................................3
5. Soiicitation or Acceptance of Honoraria._._..-•-•--•-• ...............................................................................3
B. FROHIBITID II41PL�YMENT AND BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS ................................................3
1. Doing Business With One's Agency ...................................•----............................................................3
2. Conflicting Employment or Contractual Relationship .........................................................................4
3. Exemptions ...........................................................................................................................................4
4. Ad.d:tional F�emption ............................................•••--...................---...................................................5
5. Lobbying State Agencies by Legislatars ..............................................................................................5
b. Emplayees Holding Office ........................................................................................••---......................5
7. Protessional & Occupational Licensing Board Members....-• ..............................................................5
S. Cot�tractual Services: Prohibited Emplo�n2ent ..............................•--•-•-....................----.......................5
9. Loca1 Government�ttorneys ...............................................................................................................5
C. RE�TRI�T�ONS QN AFPOINTING, EMPLOYINcs, AI�D C;�JN?Rr'�CTII�G
WITHRELATNES ...........................................................................�...,......�....,.....................................5
l. �nti-IVepotism Law ........................................:...................................:....................:............................5
2. Additi��al R�tricf�ons .............................................................................................•.....................-=-...b
�. ���T �rFICE'rIOLDING & EMPI..OYIvi��TT (REtfOL�r'I�T�T DQC}R) RESTRICTIONS ..................�
i.Labi��ir�� By �Qrmer Legislators, Statewid.� Ele�°t�d Uff cers,
and�ppc?inted State t)ffcers .......................................•--.......•--..._......�.....�.........•-�---.............._......,......6
i. Lu��yir�g By Fc�rn�r• �tate E�3�loyees ................�........,.................._..---•-•�--•--,.................,...._.............G
3. Addrtio�ai R��ietic�ns an F�rtner State Lmpla� ees ...........................................................................7
�€. iob�yin� $y Former Local Governm�nt Qf�ric�r5 �� E�r�plc�y�s .......................................e...........,.7
E. �'C?I�'{'r C:QNFLIC�:TS Or IlV'TEREST ..................................................................................................7
F. I)ISCLQSU'RES...........� ..................................:........:.....................................�.........,.....,.......,._....-......_...8
2. fiornf 1- Litniied Financial Dis�:losure ._....... ..............................�............................._..._.....,..,_..........._8
2. F�rm 1F - Final Form 1 .................................................�........_........._.._.................--•-�--.....----...............IO
3. F�rm 2- Quarterly Clieut Disclosure .....................................•--•--......_....--•..............................-•---.......14
=�. Form 6- Full and Public I?isclosure .................................................................•---•-•--..........................11
5. :�r� 6F - F�nal Form 6 ..............�._......................._.....,...�..._.. --..........._..._.........................,.....--•---•-�----tl
6. Form 9- Quarterly Gift Disclosure ...............•-.................................................._..................................11
7. Fonn 10 - Annual Disclosure of Gifts from Governmental Entities and
Direct Support Organizatians and Hanararium Event-Related Expenses ...........................................12
8. F�rm 30 - Donor's Quarterly Gift Disetosure ......................................................................................22
9. Forms 1X and 6X — Amendments ........................................................................................................13
IV. AVAII,ABILI"I'Y OF FORMS .................................................................................................................13
V. PENALTIES .........................•.._.............................-•--•--............................................................................I3
A. For Violations of the Code of Ethics ................................•-•--................................................................_.13
B. For Violations by Candidates ..................•----.............-•-•---........................................................................I4
C. For Violations by Former Officers and Employees ..............................••-................................................14
D. Far Lobl�yists and Others .........................................................................................................................14
E_ Felony Convictions: Forfeiture of Retirement Benefits ...........................................................................14
F. Automatic Penalties for Failure to File Annual Diselosure ......................................................................14
�I. ADVISORY OPINIONS ..........................................................................................................................14
A . Who Can Request an Opinion ..............••--•---..............................................................................---...........15
B. How to Request an Opinion ..............................................••--•••---.............................................................15
C. How to Obtain Published Opinions ..........................................................................................................15
VLT. COl�iPLAIN�S ...............................................................•--.._.................. .. ......................�..... .15
A. Citizen Involvement ...............................................•-•--.....----....................................................................15
B. Confidentiality ..........................................................................................................................................15
C. He��T the ComptaintProeess Works ...................:......................................................................,..._..........16
D. Dismissal of Complaint at Any Stage of Disposifion ....................................................... .......16
................
E. Statut� of Limitations ...............................................................................................................................16
VIII. EXECUTNE BRANCH LOBBYING ....................................................................................................17
IX. WHISTLE-BLOWER'S ACT .............••--.................................................................................................17
X. ?�.DUITIONAL IlvFORMATION ............................................................................................................18
XI. ONLINE TRAINING ...............................................................................................................................18
I. HISTORY OF FLORIDA'S ETHICS LAWS
Florida has been a leader among the states in establishing ethics standards for public officiafs and recognizing the
right of citizens to protect the public trust against abuse. Our state Constitution was revised in 1968 to require a code
of ethics, prescribed by law, for all state employees and non judicial officers prohibiting conflict between public duty
and private interests.
Florida's first successful constitutional initiative resulted in the adoption of the Sunshine Amendment in 1976,
praviding additianal constitutional guarantees conceming ethics in government. In the area of enforcement, the
Sunshine Amendment requires that there be an independent commission (the Commission on Ethics) to investigate
complaints conceming breaches of public h by public officers and employees other than judges.
The Gode of Ethics for Publfc Gfficers and Employees is found in Chapter 112 (Part lil} of the Flarida Statutes.
Foremost among the goals af the Code is to promate the public interest and maintain the respect of the people for
their govemment. The Cade is also intended to ensure that public officials conduct themselves independently and
impartially, not usin� their offices for private gain other than campensation provided by law. While seeking to protect
the integrity of government, the Code also seeks to avoid the creation of unnecessary barriers to public service.
Criminal penalties, which initially applied ta violations of the Code, were eliminated in 1974 in favor af
administrative enforcement. The Legislature crea#ed the Commission on Ethics that year "to servs as guardian of the
standards of canducY' for public officials, state and local. Five of the Cammission's nine members are appointed by
the Govemor, and two each are appointed by the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of
Representatives. No more than five Cammission members may be members of the same political party, and none
may hold any public emp,oyment during their twoayear te�rns of office. A chair is selected fram among the members to
serve a one-year term anci may not succeed himseif or herself.
II.IZOLE �F THE COMMISSION ON ETHICS
In additian to its constitutiaral duties regarding the investigation of complaints, the Comrr:ission:
• Renders �dvis�ry cpsni�ns ta public c�f�ciats;
• ?res.ribes f�rrns fc�r p+abii� discl�sur�;
• Pi2�S�C�S i'itc�lliilt� II3�S C� �}U{�ItC C>� vials sUEs;ect to financial disclosure fc�r ��� �y �upArvisors of Ei�ctio�s and the
Comm�ssion in distributing forms and notifying delinquent fiters;
• P�iakes recommendations to discip�inary g�ci�ls when appr�pr?a#e for viclatic�ns o� Pthics and disclosure laws,
�ince it does no# im��se ��nalties:
• Admiristers thE Execu#it�e B;��nch Lobiayist Regis�ati�n and Reporting bav�r;
• F�iai�tains finar.ci�l disclosure fili�5s of constitutional c�fficers anc� state cfftcers an� employees;
•�dmir.i�tar� autc�rr�atic fin�s for public �fficers and empioyee� �vho faii t� tim�sy .�i�e tequi��� a�nuai financiai
disciGSUre;
I
III. THE ETHICS LAWS
' The ethics laws generally consist of two types of provisions, those prohibiting certain actians or conduct and those
requiring that certain disclosures be made to the public. The following descriptians af these laws have been simplified,
in an effort ta put people on natice of their requirements. Therefore, we also suggest that you review the wording of
the actual law. Gitations to the appropriate laws are contained in brackets. The laws summarized 6elow appfy
generally to all public officers and emptoyees, state and locat, including members of advi5ory bodies. The principat
exception to this broad coverage is the exclusion of judges, as they fall within the jurisdiction of the Judicial
Qualifications Commission.
Public Service Commission members and emptoyees, as well as members of the PSG Nominating Counci(, are
subject to additEOnal et�ics standards that are enforced by the Gommission an Ethics under Chapter 350, Florida
Statutes. Further, members of the goveming boards of charter schools are subject to some of the pravisions of the
Gode of Ethics [Sec. 10Q2.33(25), Fla. Stat.], as are the officers, directors, chief executive officers and some
employees of business entities that serve as the chief administrative or executive officer or emp(oyee af a political
subdivi�ion. [Sec. 112.3136, Fla. Stat.].
A. PROHIBITID ACTIONS OR CQNDUCT
1. So[icitcrtion and Acceptance of Gzfts
Public offc�rs, �mplc,yees, locai gavemment attomeys, and candidates are prohibited from soliciting or accepting
anything of value, such as a gift, loan, reward, promise of future emplayment, favor, or service, that is based on an
understanding that their vote, official action, or judgment vvould qe influenced by such gift. [Sec. 112.313(2), Fla. Stat.]
Persons r�quired to fle �nancial discl�sur� FORM 1 ar F�RP�1 6(see Fart lli � o� this brachure), and state
pracurement ernp�oyees, ar� prohibited from soliciting any gift fram �a politi�a! commi�t�e, committee af continuous
existenee, la�byist v�he has lobbied the officia! or his oi her agency with�n the pas# 12 manths, or the partner, firm,
employer, er �rincipa! of such a lob�yist [Sec. 112.3148, Fla. Sta±.1
P�rsr�ns require� io f[e FORM 1 or ��RM �, an� state proc�: errp�c�yees ¢re prohibited from dir�ctiy ar
ind:r�ctf� a��e�t�ng a gift v�orth m�Ee t�an �9�0 fraen su�h a Icb�}�is#, fr�rr. a�a�t��r, flrrr�, empl�yer, or p� of
tha (o�by�st, �r irc�m a p�li�cal committee orcammittee of con�nt�bus exissence. �Se..ii2.31�8, Fla. Sta#.]
Ha�r��er, e�`�ative in 20�� a�►d norivith�tandi�� Sec. 112.3'f48 F!a. St�t., �� �x�cati�ae Branch lobbyist or
�rinci�al shail mat��, �i�°e�tiy dr indit and na Ex�cutive Brancn ager�cy of�eiai who fles FO�M 1 or FORM 6 snall
Ecn�win�l}l ac��p#, �irectry cr indirectly, any expenditure mad� for tne pur��se �f 9cGt�ying. Typically, this wcu!d
inciuc�e �ift� 4 at fe�s t�an $10fl that former€y were p�?nit��d u�c�er Secti�n 112.3148, Fia. Stat. [Sec. 132.3215,
Fla. Stat.j �irf na(es appiy to members and employees cf the LegisSatu��. ?-�owever, these laws are not
administered by ihe C�m�nission on Ethics. [Sec. 11 A�s5, iEa. 5tat.]
Z. �.Tnc�z�thorz�ed Comp �nsation
Pubiic officers or employees, local governrrtent attorneys, and tn�ir spous�s and minor children are prohibited
from accepiin� �n}� comc�ensation, payment, or thin� of vaiue when they icno�, cr v�n.th the exercise of reasonable �ar�
should krc��v, that it is given to influence a vote ar o.her official acti�n. ,�ec. 1 f2.3 �3(�), FPa. Stat.�
z
3. Alisuse af Fublic Position
Public o�cers and empioyees, and lacal govemment attomeys are prohibited from corruptiy using or attempting to
use their officiai positions to obtain a special privilege or benefit far themselves or others. [Sec. 112.313(6), Fla. Stat.]
4. Disclosure or Use of Certain Information
Public officers and employees and local govemment attorneys are prohibited from disctosing or using information
not available to the public and obtained by reason of their public positions for the personal benefit of themselves or
oihers. [Sec. 172.313(8}, Fla. Stat.]
S. Solicitation orAcceptance ofl�onoraria
Persons required to file financial disclosure FORM 1 or FORM 6(see Part III F of this brochure}, and state
procurement employees, are prohibited from soliciting honoraria retated to their public offices or duties. [Sec.
112.3149, Fla. Stat.]
�ersons required to fiie F�RM 1 or FORM 6, and state procurement employees, are prohibited from knawingfy
accept6ng an honorarium from a political committee, commitEee of continuous existence, tobbyist wha has lobbied the
person's agency within the past 12 months, or the p�rtr�er, firm, emplayer, ar principai of such a lobbyist. However, h�
or she may accept the payment of expenses related to an hor;ora�um event from such individuals or enti6es, provided
that the expenses are disclosed. See Part 111 F of this brochure. [Sec. 112.3149, Fta. Stat.]
Labbyists and their partners, firms, emplayers, and principafs, as weil as poiiticai committees and committees of
con#i�ucus existence, are prohibited from giving an hon�rarium t� persons requ;red to file FORM 1 or FQRM 6 and tc
�tat� pr�cur�rnent em�loyees. Violatians af this law may resuif in fines of up to $5,000 and prohibitions a5ainst
lobb�ing fa� up ta twa years. [Sec. 112.3149, Fla. 5tat]
Ho��tes�er, no#withstan�iing Sec. 112.31�9, Fla. Stat., na Executive Branch or (egis[ative lobbyist or �rin�ipa( sha1l
rr�ake, �ireetly or indirectly, and no Executive Sranch ag�ncy of�icial wha nles FdRM 1 or FG�RM 6 �hall k.ncwing!y
��c�pt, directl}� or indirectly, any expenditur� m�de fc�r the p!�r�ose o` lob�ying. Th�s may inc(ude hanorarium event
�e!a#�d exaen�es that fbrrn�r.y °,�ere p�rmitted und�r ����. '-.12.31��, �la. Stat. [S�c. 112.3215, F;a. Stat.j S�ni��a�
rJ?es ap�ly to members and employees of the L�g:�lature, Hot��ev��, these laws �re nat administer�ci oy �i��
�orrimission an Ethie�. [Sec. :1.04�, Fla. Stat.]
B. PI�C��3ITFJ] �`'�iPLOY1�,gEN'1 �tL� #�tlSi�`ESS kEL�TIC)rd�H�PS
I. �o�tzg �3usiness Y�ith �lne's Ag��acv
(a; � pu�lic employea acting as e�urchasi�g �gen#. �r pu�li� officer acting in an c�cial c3paci�y is �roh:��te�
from purchasing, renting, or leas;n� any r�al}y, goods, c�r services for his or her a�ency from a business entity in
which the officer or employee or his or her �pouse or child own more than a 5°lo interest. jSec. 112.313(3}, Fia. Stat.]
(b) A pubiic officer ar employee, acting in a private capacity, also is prohibited from renting, ieasing, or seiling any
reaity, �p�ds, �r s�r,rices #� his or her own agencu if the c�ffc�� or erri�fayee is � atate ��c�r or �rrt�I�V��, pr, if h€: or
sn� is ar� a�fi�e� or emp��yee of a Falitical subdivi�ior;, to that sutrdiv��ion ar any of its agencies. [Ssc. 112.313(3}, �i3.
Stat.]
-,
�
2. Conflicting Emp�oyment or C'oratractual Relationship
(a) A public officer or employee is prahibited from holding any employment or contract with any business entity or
agency regulated by ar daing business with his or her public agency. [Sec. 112.313(7), fla. Stat.]
(b) A public officer or employee also is prohibited from holding any employment or having a contractual
relationship which will pose a frequently recurring conflict beiween the official's private interests and public duties or
which will impede the full and faithfu{ discharge af the officia!'s public duties. [Sec. 112.313(7), Fla. Stat.]
(c) Limited exceptions to this prahibition have been created in the law for legislative bodies, certain special tax
districts, drainage districts, and persons whose professions or occupations qualify them to hold their public positions.
[Sec. 112.313(7}(a) and (b�, Fla. Stat.]
3. Exernptions—Pursuant to Sec. 112.313(12), �'da. Strxt., the prohibitions against doing husiness with
one's agency and having con,fXrcting etnployment may not apply:
(a) When the business is rotated among all qualified suppliers in a cit}� arcounty.
(b) When the business is awarded by sealed, competitive bidding and ne�her the o�cial nor his or her spouse or
child have attempted ta persuade agency personnef to enter the contract. NOTE: Disclosure af the interest of the
official, spouse, or chifd and the nature of the business must be filed �rior to or at the time of submi�sion �f the bid on
Commission FORM 3A with the Cammiss�on �n Ethics or Supervisor of Efections, depending on whstyer �e o�cial
serves at the state or local level.
(c) When the purehase or sale is forl�gal a�vertising, utilit;es service, or for passage on a c�mmon carrier.
(d) When an emergency purchase must �e made to prote�t the public health, safety ar welfare.
(e} 'dVhen the a�siness ehtity is �he enly source of supply within the political subc�ivision and there is full
disclosure of the officia!'s inte,est to the ya�,:emong bQdy or. Commission FORM �A.
;f} YVhen ths aggregat� ef any ��wl�� tra:�sac±io�s ��� na: �x.eeed $5�4 in a cal�nd�g y�ar.
lgj 'JVhen thz �usiness tra�s�ctec� �� fl �eptsit c�: ag�n�y �unds in a bank Qf �i�.h a ceun�y, c:ty, �r �is.rict
oP�via! is an offc2r, direct�r, ar s�Q�:helr��r, so ien� �s ag�ncy rec�rds shav�f that the ��vemi�g �ody n�s dete;�z?ined
that the member did not fa�!ar his or hpr ��nk ave_r at�er qualified bank�.
(h) When the prohi!�;ti��� �re uvaived �r� t�ie �ase �; ADVIS02Y BOAR� M�MBFF�S by the ap�c�i�ti�Eg ppr�c�n o�
by a tw�-thirds 4ote of the a�painting �o�y �aftsr �isclosure on Commission FaRM 4Aj.
(i} UVhen the �ublic o-�i�er or errplo,ee ��archases in a private capacity �oods or sErvices, at a�rice ans� upon
terms available ta similarly situated mem�ers �f the e�eneral public, from a business en#�ty v�hich is doing business
with his or her agency.
(j} l�Vhen the pualic c,�fcpr cr empic,ye� �n � p�ivat� capacity purchases goods �r s�rvic�s from � bus;n�ss entity
whicn is subjeet t� the regulation csf his o� her a�ercy where the price and terms cf th� t�arsac�ion are avaiia��e to
similarly situated members of the general pub(ic and the officer or employee makes full disciosure of the relationship
to the agency head or gove�ing body prior to tha transactian.
�
�. �4dditiona�Exemption
No elected public officer is in violation of the conflicting empioyment prohibition when empfoyed by a tax exempt
organization contracting with his ar her agency so lang as the officer is not directly or indirectly compensated as a
result of the contract, does not participate in any way in the decision to enter into the contract, abstains from voting on
any matter invotving the emplayer, and makes certain disclosures. [Sec. 112.313(15), Fla. Stat.J
S. Lobbying State Agencies �y �egislators
A member of the Legislature is prohibited fram representing another person or entity for compensation during his
ar her term af offce before any state agency other than judicia! tribunals. [Art. II, Sec. 8(e), Fla. Const., and Sec.
112.313(9j, Fla. Stat.J
6. �mployees Hodding Offzce
A pu�lic emp�oyee is prohibited fram being a mem�er of the gaverning body which ser�es as his or her employer.
[Sec. 112.313(10), Fla. Stat.]
7, Professipnal and Occup�xtional Lz�ensing Board Menzbers
An oificer, directcr, or administrator of a state, county, or regianal professional or occupational arganization or
association, white hold�n� such pa�itian, may n�t serve as a member of a state examin'sng ar licens€ng boar� for the
profession ar occupation. [Sec. 112.313(11 }, Fla. Stat.]
&_ Gontt°actzaal Serr%i�es: Prahrbrted E�nployment
A state employee of the executive or judicial 6ranches who participates in the decisian-making process involving a
purchase reqt�est, whc influences the content of any specification or procus standard, or who renders advice,
investigation, ar aaditir-g, regardi�g his or her agency's contract for servi�es, is pr9hibite� frarr� beina employed with a
perso� holdirg such a c�nt VJftll I11S O ; her agency. [Sec. 112.31E5(2), t=l�. S#at.)
4. L �CltZ C�itzY2Yl1�t��f t4v��ac�.�s
Locai goverr�rrent attcrn2;�s, �u�h as th� city attamey or county° �tt�r�zy, �r� t!�€+.� i��4 fir:�i� are prohibited fiom
r�presenti�g priJ�t� ir:�+ivi��a�� a�d ent�t+�s b�fore the �nit af I�caf �o�rernme;�t �:vhicn :re� ser��e. A iacai government
a:torney cahnot ree^r�mend or otnsn�ri�e refer ta his or her fi�?n ie�ai w�rk invc�lving �� (�c�i c��venment unit unless
tl�e att�rney�s co�t;a^t aut��rizes �r m�ndates the use of that ;irm. [Sec, i i?.�7:i( i�), �#a. �tat.�
C. RES i��.C'�I�}NS �?�T ��POIl�TTING, El\%�LOYING, AND �Cih;�`R�.CTL�?v ��I� REL�TNES
�'. An�:-1�Te�Qtjs�rt Lcn�
A public o�cial is prohibited from seeking rar a relative any appo�ntment, emplayrr►ent, promotian ar advancement
in the agency in which he or she is serving or over which the afficial exercis�s jurisdic6on Gr control. No person may
be �ppo:nted, �m�ilove�, promoted, or a�luan�ed in t�r to a positic�n tn �n ag��c� if such a�tion has been a�vocated by
a rela#ed pu�iic o€�cial w�a �� s�ning iri cr exercising jurisdi:.tion ar cantrel �ver the age��y; �his incEudes relatives o€
members of collegial govemment bodies. N�TE: This prohibition does not apply ta school districts (except as
provided ii� Sec. 1012.23, Ela. Stat.), cammunity calleges and state universities, ar to appoin±ments of baards ather
than those with land-planning or zQning responsibiEi#ies, in municipalities of fewer than 3�,000 residents. Also, the
5
approval of budgets does not constitute "jurisdiction or contro!" for the purposes of this prohibition. This provision
does not apply to volunteer emergency medicai, firefighting, or police service providers. [Sec. 112.3135, Fla. Stat.]
2. Additional Restt�ictions
A state employee of the executive ar judicial branch or the PSC is prohibited from directly or indirectly procuring
contractual services for his or her agency from a business entity of which a relative is an officer, partner, director, or
proprietor, or in which the emplayee, his or her spouse, and children own more than a 5% interest. (Sec. 112.3185(6j,
Fla. Stat.]
D. PQST �FFICE HOLDING AND EMPLOYlVIENT (REVOLVING DOOR) RESTRICTIONS
1. Lobbying by Former �egislators, Statewide Elected Offzcers, and Apporrtted State Officers
A member of the Legislature or a statewide elected or appointed state official is prohibited for two years following
vacation of o�ce f;om representing another person or entity for cornpensation before fhe govemment body or agency
�f which the individual was an officer or member. [Art. II, Sec. 8(e}, Fia. Const. ar.c+ Sec. 112.313(9}, Ffa. Stat.)
2. Lobb}lirtg hy Farmer State Emplayees
Certai� employees of the executive and (egislative branches of st�te govemrment are �rohibited from per
representing another person or entity `or campensation be`are the
agency with which they were employed for a period of two years after leaving their positions, unless employed by
another agency of state govemment. [Sec. 112.313{9}, Fla. Stat.] These employees include the following:
{a� Ex�cutive and tegislative braich empioyees serving i� the SENI�R MANAGEMENT SERVICE and
SELECTE� E,XEMPT SERVICE, as well as any person empl�yed by the pEPAP.TMENT OF THE LOTTERY having
authe�-+.y ove.r policy or procurement.
(b} �e:�se�n3 serving ;n t�e fo!lo�nring �osi6ar: cfass�fications: the �u�itor General; the director of the dffias of
F�ro�ra�r. Foiicy Ar:alysis and Governme�t AccounEability {OFPA�;; t�e Sergeant at Arms and S�cret�cy ofi the
S�na��; t�e ���e�ea�t at �irens a�d G[erEc o# the Ho�as� a� Repres�nt2,tiv�s; the �xecuti;l� dirpctor �f the Legislatve
G�mr�itt�� �n interg4vemmental Reiatians an� the executi��� dir�ctor and deput}r executive director af th�
: or�mEssio� on �thics; a;� execu�ve di�ectar, siafF �ir��'�tr, �: depu�; �taff d�r�ti#er c�f �a�h j�int cammitte�, sta��in�
cemr:��tt�e or s�leLi comnitt�e af the Legi�lature an exec4#iv� d 't"£�f0�, ���f' dir@Gt�t` expcutivs assistant, iegislati���
a�►aiyst, �r att�mey se►ving in ti�e C�ffice of th� Pre�iden[ of rh� Sen�te, 4h� ��ic� of it;e Speaker of th� House of
Repres�r�a6���s, the �sr�ate lllajority Party �fiice, the �enate i4liro�ih� F�rty ��ffi��, ��e House Majority �arty C�ffice
the H�sa�e �i'sr,ority �arty Qffce; the Chancellor �r•d Vic�-Gh���nrla�� of the 5tate University System; the gereraE
cou�sel t� the B��rci of R?gents; the president, vice presidents, and d�an� o� each sta±e university; any person hired
crn a ce,vact��l basis and having the �ower normaEly eortferr�d up�n �UCh �ersons, by �,�hatever titie; and any K?erson
havin� th� po;nrer normaHy confierrsd upon th� above �acsi.�ons.
This prahibi�i�n does not apply to a p�rson vvf�o was �m�loyed by the L�gislatur� ar other agency prior ta July i,
1989; who was a denned employee ofi the SiJ S or the PS� v�iho he[d such �mplaymen# on December 31, 1994; ar whc
reaGhsd r�c�rrnaf retir�ment ag� and retir�d by Ju{y 1, 19a'{. It do�s a,�ply t� �P� ennloyees.
PENALTIES: Persans found in violation of this section are subject to the penalties contained in the Code (see
PEPJALTIES,'a�t V) as vr�ll as a civil penalty in an amaunt equal tQ the conrensation ;nihich the person received far
the proh�bited c�nduct. [Sea 112.313{9)(a}5, FI�. Stat.�
6
3. Additional Rest�rctions on Former State Emplvyees
A former executive or judicial branch employee ar PSG empiayee is prohibited from having employment or a
contractual relationship, at any time after retirement or termination of empfoyment, with any business entiry (other
than a public agency) in connection with a contract in which the emp[oyee participated personally and substantially by
recommendation or decision while a public employee. [Sec. 112.3185(3), Ffa. Stat.]
A former executive or judicial branch employee or PSG employee who has retired or terminated employment is
prohibited from having any employment or contractual relationship for two years with any business entity (other than a
public agency} in connection with a contract for services which was within his or her responsibility while serving as a
state employee. [Sec.112.3185{4}, Fla. Stat.]
Unless waived by the agency head, a former executive or judicial branch employee or PSC employee may not be
paid more for contractual services provided by him or her to the former agency during the first year after leaving the
agency than his or her annual satary before leaving. [Sec. 112.3185(5), Fla. Stat.)
These prohibitions do not appty to PSC employees who we� so employed on or before Dec. 31, 1994.
4. Lobbying by F'ormer Local Government Offzce�s rnd Employees
� person efec ted to county, municipal, schoa! c�istrict, or spe�ial district Office is prohibited from represen6ng
another perso� or entity for campensati�n before th� goremrrsent body or a��ncy of which he or she was an officEr for
two years after (eaving o�ce. Appointed o�cers and employees of counties, municipalities, school districts, and
special districts may be subject to a sim1ar restriction by locai ordinance or resofution. [Sec. S 12.313(13) and (14j,
F1a. �tat.}
E. VOTING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
No state publi^ a�cer is �rohibite� from votins in an ��cial ca�acity on any matter. However a st�te public afficer
vuho vctes on a measure r�rhich inures to his or her special �r�vate gai� or I�ss, �r which the off�er knQws uyould in:�ra
to the spe�ial private gai� c�r lass of ary pri�!ci�a! by wnom he �r she is retained, afi the parent argahi�afi�n or
sut�sidiary ef a corporate ��inc:�a! by whi�Fi ne or sh� i� ��taine�, oz a Eelativ�, or cf ���!siness assc�c'sata, :�uv# fil� a
memo� of voting cc�nflict on Gerh=rriss€on ��rrn �r� ��ti� the recarding secretary within 15 �ays aftar the vct��
��cu�s, �isclasing tt�e nature a� hi� or ner inter�st in ti�e �iat�er.
hdo county, rr:unicipal, or other iocal public nf�i�er sh�li vot� in �n ot�cial c�pacity upan any me�sure vJhic� �vo�ld
�nu� tG his ar har s�eciai p�vate gair� or !oss O� 4'VI1tC�i ��1� G �ice� kn ;ws �rauid in�re to th� spec'sal privat� ga;� c�r 1�3ss
of a�y pri�ci�ai by whom h� or 5:?� i� r�i�i�ecl �f the par�nt o�ga�ization or ssabsidiary of a corp�rate pt?ne�pal by
which he or she is retained, of a reEative, or �f ��usiness �ssoc�ate. The officer must publicly announce the na�r� af
y�s ar her interest �efore tFe vo�e an� mu�� fi€� a tr�r,i�randixm c�f voting corrf!ict an Cc�mmi��ion Farm 8� v��t'� the
meeting's recording offic�r within 15 �ays af;er the vofe occurs di��losing ±he natur� �# his or fjer interest in the
ma±ter. Nowever, members of community redevelopment agenaies and district officers elected on a one-acre, one-
vate basis are nat required to a�stain vvhen �roting in that capacity.
�lo apposnted state or !oeai offie�r sha:l par�icipate i�i any tn�t#er which wo��id irure ta t�e oifcer's sp�ciai �rivate
�ain nrloss, th� spec�al privqte gain or IQSS a� any prin�ipa� byr wham i�e crsh� is retair�d, of the pare�t erganiza�o�
or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained, af a relative, or of a business associate, without
frst disclasing the nature ofi his or h�r interest in the ma�ter. The memorandum �f vating conflict (G�mmissior: Form
7
8A or 88) must be filed with the meeting's recarding offrcer, be provided to the other members of the agency, and be
read publicly at the next meeting.
If the conflict is unknown or not disclosed priar to the meeting, the appointed official must orally disclose the
conflict at the meeting when the conflict becomes known. Also, a written memorandum of voting conflict must be filed
with the meeting's recording officer within 15 days of the disclasure being made and must be pravided to the other
members of the agency with the disclosure being read public{y at the next scheduled meeting. [Sec. 112.3143, Fla.
Stat. )
F. DISCLOSURES
Conflicts of interest may occur when public officiats are in a position to make decisions that affect their persanal
financial interests. This is why public offcers and employees, as well as candidates who run for public office, are
required to publicly disclose their financial interests. The disclosure process serves to remind officials of their
obligation to put the pubiic interest above persanal considerations. It also helps citizens to monitar the considerations
cf those who spend their tax dallars and participa#e in public policy decisions or adminis�
Alf public afficials and candidaies do not fiie the same degree ofi disclasure; nar do they a(I fiie at the same time or
place. Thus, care must be taken to determine which disclosure forms a particular official ar candidate is required to
file.
The follow�ng farms are desc�i�ed below to set forth t�e requirements o� the various discl�sures and the steps far
coRec�y providing the information in a timely manner.
�. FORII%t 1 - �itrrited Fria�neial Disrlostc�e
Wha Must File:
Persons requi�e� to fils �ORM 1 include all sta�e afficers, iocal ofificers, candidates T�r local eieciive office, and
specifed state ��»ploy��s as da�neu belcw (�ther tha� those o�cers ;uho are req€�ire� by la�ru ta fii� FG�RIV� 6).
STIa?'� OF�ICEr�S i�clu�e:
1} Efected pubii� ��rai��s ��t se�v;�g i�i a�cl�tiLai �ubdivision ofth� s�t� an� ary �ersc� a�,pQirt?� �� � I! a�ac�ncy
in such a�fce, urless re�uir�� to fi[� fult �;s�losu;e on Form �.
2) Appainted memb�r� cf each i��ar�, �o�r:�ission, autharity, or councii hat�i��,r� St�1�41iI�E ;�ri;�i�tian
excfuding rr�em��rs �f st�l�ly ���is�sry �odies; �ut including judicial nom'snati�g 4a�rm�ss�on n�e�nb�r�; di�ect�rs of
�nterprise Fio�ida, Sc�ip�s F9o�id� �undlrg C�rporation, �Alorkforce �larida, and Space Flo�ida; members af the
Cauncil on the Social Staius �,f �lack 'tnEn and Bays; and �ovemors an� ser��ar r:�ana�ers ef �i�z�ns Praperty
Insurancz Corporaticn �nd Fiori�� Workers` C�mpen�ation Joint Underrrriting �ss:�ci3tipn.
�j The Commiss�oner of Education, members af the State Board of Education, t�e �aar� of Governar�, and the iocai
boards of trustees and presidents oT siate universities.
LO��L �FFICERS inclu�i�:
1} Persons elected to office in any� polsti�al subdivisicn (such as municipalities, counties, and spec:a� districts} and
any person appainte� to fil! a vacancy in s�ach office, unless required to file ful( disclosure on Form 6.
$
2) Appointed members of the following boards, councils, commissions, authorities, or atfier bodies of any caunty,
rrtunicipality, school district, independent special district, or other politicai subdivision: the goveming body of the
subdivisian; an expressway autho�ty or transportation authority; a community coliege or junior college district board of
trustees; a board having the power to enforce local code provisions; a board of adjustment; a planning or zoning
board having the power to recommend, create, or modify land planning or zoning within the political subdivisian,
except for citizen advisory committees, technicaf coordinating committees, and similar groups who only have the
pawer to make recommendations ta planning or zoning boards; a pension board or retirement board empowered to
invest pension or retirement funds or to determine entitlement to or amount of a pension ar ather retirement benefit.
3) Any other appointed member of a local govemment board who is required to file a statement of financial interests
by the appointing authority or the enabling iegislation, ordinance, or resolu#ion �reating the board.
4) Persons holding any of these positions in local government: mayar; county ar city manager; chief administrative
employee of a county, municipality, or ather political subdivision; county or municipaE attomey; chief county or
municipal building inspector; county or municipal water resouroes ccordinator; coun:y cr municipal pollution contr�l
director; courty or muniei�al environmental controt director; county or municipal adrrzinistrator with power to grant or
deny a land deve(opment permit; chief of police; fire chief; municipal cleric; appointed district school superintendent;
cammunity college president; district medical examiner; purchasing agent (regardless of title} having the autfiority to
make any purchase exceeding $20,000 for the local gavernmental unit.
5) Members o� gove�ni�g boards of cha�tzr schoots aperated by a city or at�e; public entity.
�i) The officers, directors, and chief executive off'rcer of a corporation, partnership, ar dcher busine$s entity that is
�er�;ing as th� chi�f admin�stra�ve or executive officer or employee of a politic�! su�division, and any business entity
empioyee who is actins� as #he chief �dministrative �r executive afficer or am�iayee af the politicai subdivision. (Sec.
112.3136, Fla. S�t.]
SPECIFI�� SYATE EMPLC�YEE includes:
3) Em�loyees 3n t�P Qf��ce af the Gover or of a Cabinet member wha ars ex�rr��± fram the Career Service Sy�terr,
exciuding secr�ta:�al, �ie��ai, and sirm:largositions.
2} Th� fu�levr�nc� �os�t;t�ns in each state depa�tment, eommissi��, ��ard, �� caurci:: seere`��y ar state su�g�or!
g��era;, a�s?stant ar de��ty s�cretar}�, exe�utive director, assis±ant 4r r,�puty ex�yu+��e �;r�ctar, and ar�yone hav'sng
tFe pcwpr�Qr,nafly ccn{erre� u�on such persQns, rega,•d!es� aftitie.
3) i he �o(lewi�� �osieion� in �aeh sEate department or di��is?on: d�r�c#or, ass;stan� �� deputy directcr, bureau chief,
as�istant �ur�au ;.hiefi, �n� any pzrson having the por�ter norrraliy cor.#er��d u�on such persans, �egardless of title.
�; �ssistar�t siate �tto�eys, assistant pu�afic defen�ers, publs� counse�, fui!-ame st�te employee� serving as counsel
or assistant counsel te a state agency, a deputy chief judge of cc�mpensation claims, a judge of compensation claims,
acfmin�strative law;ud�eg, and hearing officers.
5} TI1G S1i�3@CI11�$!1CIt'tt� �� dire CtQC 4f � 5t8t@ fC1�f1t2I I?@2�I��1 iit��fUt@ @Std�}IlSI12� f�f tr�ining and research in the mental
nea(th fi�lc� or any rrajor �tate institution or facility �st��lished for carre�#;r�n�, trair�ii�g, treatr�sent, or r�habifitatio�.
6) State agency busine�s managers, finance and accounting dir�ctors, personne! cf.':cers, grant coordinators, an�
�ur�hasing agen#s (regardfess of title) with power to make a purchase exceer�ing $20,�Od.
9
7} The following positions in legislative branch agencies: each employee (other than t�ase employed in maintenance,
clerical, secretarial, or similar pasitions and legislative assistants exempted by the presiding officer of their house);
and each employee of the Commission on Ethics.
What Must Be Disclosed:
FORM 1 requirements are set forth fully on the form. In general, this includes the reporting persan's sources and
types of financiaf interests, such as the names of employers and addresses of real property holdings. NO DOLLAR
VALUES ARE REQUIRED TO BE LISTED. In addition, the form requires the disclosure of certain relationships with,
and ownership interests in, specified types of businesses such as banks, savings and loans, insurance companies,
and utiiity companies.
When to File:
GAIVDI�r1TES for elected 1ocal office must file FORM 1 together with an� at the same time they file their qualifying
papers. STATE and LOCAL OFFICERS and SPECIF�ED STATE EMPLOYEES are required to file disclosure by Ju!y 1
of each year. �fhey also must file within thirty days fram the date of appointment or the beginning of employment.
Those appaintees requiring Senate confirmation must file priar ta confsrmation.
U'lhere to File:
Each LOCAL OFFICER files FORM 1 with the Supervisor of Elections in the county in which he or she
permanent(y resides.
A STATE �FFICER ar SPECiFIED STATE EMPLQYE� fil�s witt► the Camrnission on Ethics. [Sec. 1 fi2.3 i�5, Fla.
Stat.]
2. FORlFI1F-F�t1tr�Forn2 1 Litttitet�Fit�tr�t�t'�ZL'isclt�sut'�
�QF2M 1F is the disclasure fo:�m required to br� f:lee� wi#h:� 0"!3 ��ys after a public afficer o! empiayee r�qui�ed ta
fi?e F�RM ? ieaues his or her pu�lic �os�ian. i h� �arm c�ver� the d��cl�sure s�2ri�d �etween Ja�uar� 1 anc! tFe fast
day of a�fice ar employment ��vithin that year.
.3. �'O�f 2 - Q�ra�•�erly �`li�ct I3isclosut•e
E;�e stat� o�ficers, io�a! �fficers, �nd speci�ieri stata em�=c�y�e� ii�te� �bave, as well as eiLeted co�s+�fiuti�nal
�sfficsrs, must �le a FQRM 2 if they ar � partner or �ssaciat� +�f their prof�ss:onal firm represent a��ient �r
c�mpensa5on k�efiare an ageney at tl?eir levei af govem�n�nt.
A F�RM 2 di�clasure includes :he nar�es ef ciient� � by the repor�inc� person ar by any F�.rfner or
ass�wiate of his or her prafessional firm for a fee or comm�ssion before agencies at the reparting person's level of
g�vemment. Such represeniations D� NOT iNCLUDE appearances ir ministeria( matters, appearances b�fare;udges
af compensatian claims, or representations on behalf of one's agency in one's official capacity. Nor does the terrr�
=n�lu�e the pteparation and filing of forms an� ��plic�tFons ��er�ly for th� pur�ose of obtaining or transfer1ng a
lirense. so larg as the issuance o� ihe fieense �io�s �crt require � r�ariance, spe�iai corsiderati:.n �r a certifi�ate of
pub[ic convenience and necessity.
IU
When to File:
This disclasure shouid be filed quarterly, by the end of the calendar quarter following the calendar quarter during
which a reportable representation was made. FORM 2 need not be filed merely to indicate that no reportable
repr�sentations occurred during the preceding quarter; it should be filed ONLY when reportable representations were
made during the quarter.
Where To File:
LOCAL OFFICERS file with the Supervisor of Elections of the county in which they permanently reside.
STATE OFFiCERS and SPECIFIED STATE EMPLOYEES file with the C�mmission on Ethics. [Sec. 112.3145(4),
Fla. Stat.]
4. FD�ZM 6- Full. and Public �zsclosure
Who Must File:
Persons required by law to file FORM 6 include all elected constitutional afficers and candidates for such o�ce;
the mayor and members of the city council and candidates far these ofifices in Jacks�nville; tne Quval County
Superintendent �f Schools; judges of campensatian claims; and members of the Florida Housing Financ� Corporation
Board and the Florida Prepaid College 8oard; and members of expressway authorities, transporta�io� autharities,
bridge authorities or toll authorities created pursuant to Gh. 348, 343, ar 349, or o�er Isgislative enactment.
What Must be Disciased:
FORM 6 is a detailed disclosure of assets, lia�ilities, and sources of income over $1,OOQ and their values, as w�i;
as net worth. Qf�cials may opt to .�'ile their most recent income tax retum in 19eu of listing sources of incoms but still
must disclose their asse:s, 3iabil�ties, �nd net worth. In addition, ttte farm requir�s the disclo�ure of certain
r�latianshi�s with, and avrmeri�ip intzr�sts ��, s�cified ty�s af businesses such as a�nks, savin�s �nd loans,
insurance comp�nies, and �tility �am�aani�s.
When and Whsre To File:
lncum�aent a��ials m�ast fi�e F�RM 6 a�ri��lly �y Jul;� 1�=ith the Gommiss�an on eth�cs. GA�IDIDATEd must fi�
with the officer bef�re whom they �ualify at the time of aualiiying. (�rt. li, Sea. 8(aj a�d (i), FI�. �onst., and Sec_
112.3144, Fla. Stat.j
��. F(3R�LI6F-FinalFnrm 6�'u�l ana' �i�1�1icI}z�closure
This is the discic�sure *o�r� require� tc b� filed �Mithin 60 days after a public affice� a; emp(ayee required to file
FORM 6 leaves his or her pu�alic �ositior:. The form covers the disclasure period between January 1 and the iast day
of office or employment wi:hln that year.
G. FORii-� 9- Quarterl}� ��� L�isclostrre
�ach persan required to fife FORM 1 0� FOFtt,� 6, and each state �rocurement emplayee, must ile a FOt?�1 9,
Quarterly Gift Disclosure, v�ith the �ommission on Ethics on the fast day of any caiendar quarter following the
11
calendar quarter in which he or she received a gift worth mare thart $100, other than gifts from relatives, gifts
prahibited from being accepted, gifts primarily associated with his or her business or employment, and gifts otherwise
required to be disclosed. FORM 9 NEED NOT BE FILED if no such gift was received during the calendar quarter.
Information to be disclosed includes a description of the gift and its value, the name and address of the donor, the
date of the gift, and a copy of any receipt for the gift provided by the donar. [Sec, 112.3148, Fla. Stat.J
7, FORM 10 - Annua� Disclosure o, f Gi, fts from Government Agencies arad Dzrect-S`upport Organ�atio�,s
and �onorarium Event Related Expenses
State govemment entities, airport authorities, counties, municipalities, schoof boards, water management districts,
the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, and the Techno(ogical Research an� Development Authority may
give a gift worth more than $100 to a person required to file FORM 1 or FORM 6, and to state procurement
employees, if a public purpose can be shown for the gift. Also, a direct support organization for a gavernmenta( entity
may give such a gift to a person wha is an officer or employee of that entity. These gifts are to be reported on FORM
10, to be filed by July 1.
The govemmental entity or direct-support organization giving the gift must provide me officer or empiayee with a
statement abaut the gift no later than March 1 of the following year. The o�cer or employee th�n must disclose this
information by fiiing a statement by July 1 with his or her annual financial disciasure that describes the gift and iists
the donor, the date of th� gift, and the value of the total gifts provided during the cal@n�a; year. State procurement
empioyees file their statements with the Commission on Ethics. {Sec. 112.314�, Fla. Sta#.�
In addition, a person required to fite FORM 1 or FORM 6, or a state procu�ment employee, who receives
expenses or payment c�f expens�s reiated to an honorarium event frorr sam�one wFo is prohibited from givi�g him or
her an honorarium, must u�isclose annuaily the name, address, ana affiliatiat� of the donor, the amaunt af the
expenses, the date of the event, a descriptian of the expenses paid ar proaided, and tha tatal value of the expenses
on F�Rf1V1 90. The dan�� payi�g the ,expense� must provide the o#ficer or emplofee with a st�tement about the
expenses withie� 6tl day� o`ti�e hortararium ev�nt.
The disc�ast!r� must t�� �iled �iy July 1, for expenses received during �i�e previa;as cai�naar year, wiEh the efficer's
ar em�iayee's F�f��tR `�r ��RAA 6. Stat� �r�cur2men: em�foyee� file �neir ��ate�Ert� with the Corrrmissian or
Ethics. [Sec. 112.3 {��, �i�. �tat-]
Fiowever, r�otwit(�st�a��in� ���. 1�2.31�.9, �la. St�t., no enecutive branch a� leg�sdati�e !o�a�iyist or pr:ncipal sh�ll
m�ke, dire�tiy cr �ndire�#{y, an�i ro ex��utive branch agency u��ho files F�P�A, 'f or FnRP� 6 sh�i! knawingly accept,
directly cr indEr��tly, any ex�end�ure made #or the purpose of (obbying. This rnay �nelude honcrar;um event r�late�
expense� th�t sorme�ly 4+vere pe�rni�f un�er Section �12.3149. (Se�. i t<.329�, �{�. �:�t.] �irriilar prohibi#ions app�Y
to legislative offrei�ls and empiayees. i-�owerer, thes� laws are not adm�nistere� bf the �ommissiert an Ethics [S�c.
11.�45, Fla. Stat.;
8. FOI�Y�f 30 - Donor's �arte�°Iv Gi t L?isclosure
As mentienAC! above, the following pe.rsons and entities generalfy are prohibited from givin� a gift worth mare than
$1G0 to a report�ng in+�ividua; (� ��rson r��uired to file FC?RP,� ? ar FQR�,�I o"; or te a s#�i� pro�u�empnt em�loyee: a
�eliticai committee �r commitie� of continu4us existence; a�abbyist wh� I��rbies �e re�crting individual's er
procurement employee's agency; and the partner, firm, employer, or principal af such a(obbyist. If such person or
entity makes a gi�t wort�i i�twe�n $25 and $1a0 to a reparting individual �r stat� ,�rocuremen: employe2 (that is not
12
accepted in behaif of a govemmentai entity or charitable organ¢ation), the gift should be reported on FORM 30. The
donar also must notify the recipient at the time the gift is made that it will be reported.
The FORM 30 should be filed by the last day of the calendar quarter following the calendar quarter in which the
gift was made. If the gift was made to an individual in the legislative branch, FORM 30 should be filed with the
Lobbyist Registrar. If the gift was to any other reparting individual or state procurement employee, FORM 30 should
be filed with the Gommission on Ethics.
However, notwithstanding Section 112.3148, Fla. Stat., no executive branch lobbyist or principal shall make,
directly or indirectly, and no executive branch agency official ar emp(oyee who files FORM 1 or FORM 6 shall
knowingly accept, direct(y or indirectly, any expenditure made for the purpose of lobbying. This may include gifts
that formerly were permitted under Section 112.3148. [Sec. 112.3215, Fla. Stat.j Similar prohibit�ons apply to
legislative officials and employees. Hawever, these laws are not administered by the Commission on Ethics [Sec.
11.045, Fla. Stat.]
9. FORhf �lYAND FORM b1Y - Arrzendments to Form 1 cmd Fortn 6
These forms are provided for o�cers or employees who want to amend their previously filed Form 9 or Form 6.
N. AVAILABILITY t?F FORMS
LO��:L OFFIG�RS and EMr�LOYEE5 who must file FORM 1 a�nually will be sent the form by mail from the
Supervisor of Elections in fhe county in which they permanently reside not iater than JUNE 1 ofi each year. Newly
efected and appointed officials or employees shauld contact the head af their agencies for copies of the form or
d�wnfoad i: frcm wvw�.ethics.state.fl.us as should those {�er�ans s�nc� are required to 51e their final disclasure
statements w'►_thin 6(} d�ys of ieaving office or employment.
ELECTEQ GrJN�TITUTI�NAL QFFICERS, QTHER STATE �JFFICERS, �rt� SPECIFIEQ STATE EMPLOYEES
rrrho must file �nnually �ORM 1 or S will be sent these �*ms by mail from ths CortSmission on Ethics by JUNE 1 of
each y�a�. �dewfy electe� and appointed of5cers anci �m�;oy�es shoul� cc�rt�ct the h2ads of their agencies cr the
�ammi�s��n t�n Ethi�s fiar c�pies cf the form or downlo�d it fram �v��^u.etnic�.sta±e.fl.us, as should #hose per�ons uvh�
�re rer��ir�d to �i!� tneir �r,al dis�lasure statements rrrith:n �C days a€ i�a�i�g o�FcE �r �rn�ia;rme� t.
Any p2rsan �eedi�� o�� or r�ore of th� �the; fdrms descr:beci h�r� may Gis� obt�in .hzm fram a Superviscr af
Ele�tian� �r ���n th� Gom€r;issian an Ethics, P.�. �ra;rver 157�J9, �alrahassc�, Flari�a 32397-5709, Th�;r ar� al�4
ava;laaie or the Gcmrnission's we�site: wwvv.eth�cs.st2te.fl.u�.
V. PEI�ALT`IES
�Z_ �T�r-cri�inal Penalties for Vieiation ot �e Sunsl�i�e A�L��'ment and the Code �f Ethics
There are no crirr�ina! penalties for violation of the Sunshine Amendm�nt and the Code of Ethics. Penalties for
violation of these lavvs may include: impeachment, removal from a�ce ar employment, suspensian, pubiic censc!re,
reprimand, demotion, reductian in salary ievel, forfieiture of no more than one-third salary per manth for no more than
tw?Ive mer�t��s, � civii penalty not ta exceed $1C,000, �nd res6t�stion of �ny �cun�ary ber�efits received.
13
B. Penalties for Candidates
CANDIDATES for public o�ce who are faund in violation of the Sunshine Amendment or the Code of Ethics may
[ze subject to one or more of the following penalties: disqualification from being on the ballot, public censure,
reprimand, or a civil penalty not to exceed $1 b,000.
G. Penalties for Former Officers and Employees
FORMER PUBLIC OFFICERS or EMPLOYEES vuha are found in violation of a provision applicable to former
officers or employees or whose violation occurred prior to such offce�'s or employee's leaving public office or
employment may be subject to one or more of the following penalties: public censure and reprimand, a civil penalry
not to exceed $10,000, and restitution of any pecuniary benefits received. jjec. 132.317, Fla. Stat.]
D. Penalties for Lobbyists and Others
An executive tran�h lobbyist who has failed to comply with the Executive Sranch Lo6aying Registratian law (see
Rart VIII} may be fined up to $5,000, reprimanded, censured, or prohibited from lo�bying executive b;anch agencies
for up to two years. Lobbyists, their employers, principals, partners, and firms, and politicai committees and
committees of continuous existence who give a prohibiteri gift or hanararium or fail to comply with the gift reporting
requirements for gifts worth between $25 and $100, may be penalized by a fine of not more than $5,OOt� and a
proh�bition on lobbying, ar employing a lobbyist ta Icbby, befors the agency of the pu6lic officer or empfoyse ro whorn
the gift was given for up to two years.
Executive Branch lobbying firms that faii to timefy fi(e their quarterly compensation reports may be fined $5d per
day per prneipal fior each day the report is late, u� ta a maximum fii� of $5,OOQ per r��or:.
E. Felony Convietions: Forfeiture af R.°,tirement Benefits
Pubiic o�cers and employees are subject to �orEeiture of al! �gfits and benefits under the r�t�rement sy�stem t�
�hich they belang if c�nvicted af ce�tair ofFe�ses. 7he cffenses ;n�(ude em�ezzlem�n: or �eft of public funds;
br[bery; felonies �peci�ied in Cha}�ter i�38, Flo�ida �ta�ute�; impeachabls offenses, an� felcnies cort�mit�e� ��h i�t4:��
t� d�#rauu th� pup(ic orthe:rpublic aaency. iS�a. 9i2.�473, �!a. �tat.j
F. rlutomatic Penalties for Failt�re to Fi1e t�rinual Uiseiasure
Publ�c o�icers and empioyees requsred to fiie either Ferm 1�r Form 6 annual financia! disclasure are s�!biect to
a�at��iat�c fnes of $25 far eauh day ta�e tha fi�rm is �IEd after Sept�rr�ber 1, up to a maximum pena(ty �� $� ,50t�. [See.
112.3144 and 112.3't 45, F(a. Stat.j
VI_ fiD��I"�J�� OPfl�:�4I�S
Gonflic#s of interest may be aveided by greatpr awarPness c�f the ethics laws on the part of public officials and
empioyees through advisory assistance fram the Commission on Ethics.
I4
A. Who Can Request an Opinion
Any public officer, candidate for public offlce, or public employee in Fiorida who is in doubt about the applicability
af the standards of conduct or disclosure laws ta himself or herself, or anyone who has the power to hire or terminate
another public employee, may seek an advisory opinian from the Gommission about himself ar herself or that
employee.
8. How to Request an Opinion
Opinions may be requested by tetter presenting a question based on a real situation and inc(uding a detailed
description of the situation. Opinions are issued by the Commission and are binding on the conduct of the person who
is the subject of the opinion, unless materiaf facts were omitted or misstated in the request for the opinion. Published
opinions will not bear the name of the persons involved untess they consent to the use of their names.
C. How to Obtain Published Opinions
All of the Gommissicn's opinions are availa6le far viewing or download at its webs;te:
www.eth ics.state.fl.us.
�'II. COMPL�INTS
A. Citizen Involvement
Th2 Cammissicn an Ethics �a�n�t con�u�t investigations of alleged violatior�s of the Sun�hine Amendment or the
Code of E#hics �n{ess a pe�son yil�s a s�r�rn �ompiaint with the Cammission �lieging such �iaiatian f�a� o�curred.
If you have kr.owled�e that � person ;n govemment has violatsd the standards ef ccnrluct or disc�osure laws
described above, you rr►ay rep�rt these violations to the Comm'ission by fi!in� a swom camplaint on the� f�rm
prescribed by th� Corr�issior a�d avaiiable for d�wnload at ww�,v.ethi�s.state.fl.u:,. Otheswise, the Cornmission is
�nable ta taks action, ever after I�arn�n� ef �uch misdeeds throu�h nev+�spaper rep�rs or te!ephor�� caifs.
Should you desire �ssistance in cbtair;rtg or �ompleting a complaint fiorm {Ff�R� 5�j, yo� may recesue either by
cor�tacting the Co�n�ission ��fice at 4he addre�s �r phar�e n�smber showrj on tt�e ins;de fr�nt cover d� thi� baokiet.
S. Cc�nfide�t�aliti:�
The com�lairt, as �vell as �I! proceeding� and records relating to the camp;ain?, �s conn��ntia� until the acc�:seci
r�quests th�t such r�co�s �e made �ublic or unti! the compl�int reaches a stage in the Cammi�sion'� �roceedings
��vhere it E�ecame� pu�lic. Thi� �4ans t�i�t unless the Commission receives a�uritt�n ;rya;ver c3f c�nfs�e�`.iaiifij fr�m the
accused, tP:e Comrrissi�n is het free to release any docum�nts or tc� :omment c�n a cor��lair,t to members of tl�e
public or press, so lan� as ±he complaint remains in a�onfider,tial stage.
IN NO EVENT N[AY A COMPLAINT 3E FILED OR DISCLQSEQ WI�'H RESPEC7 TO A Cf�NDIDAT'E t7�2 ELEGTION
WlTHIN F!VE �}AY� r�REGEe�l�i� THE �-LEGTION DATE.
15
C. How the Complaint Process Warks
The Commission staff must forward a copy af the ariginal swam compfaint to the accused within five days of its
receipt. Any subsequent swom amendments to the complaint atsa are transmitted within five days of their receipt.
Once a complaint is filed, it goes through three procedural stages under the Commissian's rules. The first stage is
a determination of whether the allegations of the complaint are legally suffrcient, that is, whether they indicate a
possible violation of any law over which the Commission has jurisdiction. If the compiaint is found not to be legally
sufficient, the Commission will order that the complaint be dismissed without investigation, and alf records relating to
the complaint will become public at that time.
If the complaint is found ta be legally su�cient, a preliminary investigat�on will �e undertaken by the investigative
staff of the Commission. The second stage ofi the Commission's proceedings involves this preliminary investigation
and a decision by the Commission as to whether there is probabfe cause to believe that there has been a violation of
any of t�e ethics laws. If the Commission finds no proba6le cause to believe there has been a violatian of the ethics
faavs, the complaint v�rll be d�s�n�ssed and wilt become a matter of public record. !f the Gammission finds probable
cause ;o t�elieve thEre has be�n a violation of th� etl;ics laws, the camplaint becomes �ubl;c and usually enters the
third stage of proceedings. This stage requires the Commission to decide whether ihe law was actuafly violated and, if
so, whether a penalty should be recommended. At this stage, the accused has the right to request a public hearing
(triai) at whici� evidence is presented or the Commissian may order d�at such a hearing b� heid. Public hearings
usually are held ir o� near the area �r�here the alleged violation occ�rred.
When the Gommission concludes that a violatian has been committed, it issues a public repart of its findings and
may recommend one or more penalties to the apprapriate discip(inary body or afficial.
When the Commissibn d�termines that a persan has fited a camptaint w�th knowl�dge that the corriplaint contains
ane or more false allega±ions or with reckless disr�gard for ravhether the complaint conta;ns false allegations, the
c�mplainant v�,ri!( be lia�le far costs plus reasanable attomey's fees incurred by the person compiained against. The
Depa:�tment �f Legal Affairs may brin� a civil action to recov�r such fePs a�d cost�, if they are not paid voluntarily
vrithin 3C days.
D. I�ismissal of Cot�pla�ts �t �ny Stage of I�is�asitio�t
T;�e Cort�rrissiv� r��y, at i�s �iscr��on, dism'sss any corrtp!�in: �t any �t�ge �f clisp��:titn Sh�u�d it dete�rnine that
the �ub!ic in=`,ere�t u�r��s� r4t �E �erve� �y proceeding further in which aase the Ccr�mi�si�n �,�ili issue a pubiic rQ�ert
s#a!�r,g �,�i'J� �ariicul�rit�j i±s reas�ns for �fie dismissai. [S�c. 112.�24(� 1}, !=1�. Stat.]
E_ S tah:te Gi Limitati�ns
l�II svvorn �om�la�r.ts �Ilec�ing � vi�latian af �he Sunah�ne Am�ndrrt�nt ar #h� �ade �f Ethics �r►ust be fil�d with thP
Com�n9ss�on withir five 5�ea;s of the allaged �iio(ation or athsr bre�ch af ths pu�lic tnas#. Time starts to run on the da�f
AFTER the vical�ti�n or breach of pub(ic trust is committed, The statut� of limitations is tolled on the day a swom
comp!aint is *iied w+th tne Commission. If a complaint is fiied �nd t�i� statute of iirrsitations has run, the compiaini wdi
be dismissed. [Sec. 112.3�3i , Fla. Stat.]
16
VIII. EXECUTNE BRANCH LOBSYING
Any person who, for compensation and on beha(f of anather, lobbies an agency of the executive branch of state
govemment with respect to a decision in the area of policy or procurement may be required ta register as an
executive branch tobbyist. Registration is required befare lobbying an agency and is renewable annually. In addition,
each lobbying firm must file a compensa6on report with the Gommission for each calendar quarter during any portion
of which one or more of the firm's lobbyists were registered to represent a principal. As noted above, no execu6ve
branch lobbyist or principal can make, directly or indirectly, and no executive branch agency afficial or employee who
files FORM 1 or FORM 6 can knowingly accept, directly or indirectly, any expenditure made for the purpose of
lobbying. [Sec. 112.3215, Fla. Stat.]
Paying an executive branch lobbyist a contingency fee based upan the outcome of any spe�ific executive branch
action, and receiving such a fee, is prohibited. A viota6on of this prohibition is a first degree misdemeanor, and the
amount r�ceived is subject to forteiture. This does not prohibit sales people from receiving a commission. [Sec.
112.3217, Fla. Stat.j
Executive b�anch departments, state univers�ties, community colleges, and water manag�ment districts are
prohibited from using public funds to retain an executive branch (or legis(ative branch) lobbyist, atthough these
agencizs may use full-time employees as lobbyists. jSec. 11.062, Fla. �tat.�
Add�t6ona! infarm�tion about the executive branch lobbyist regi�tration system may be abtained by contacting the
Lobbyist Registrarat the following address:
Executive Branch Labbyist Registratian
Raom G-68, Clau�e Per�e� Suil�ing
11 i W. Maoison Str�et
Tallahassee, F! 32399-9425
Phone: 8501922-4987
IX, �741� ACT
ir �986, the Legislature enacted a"l�dhistie-�!csv,re�� ��ct" to p�t)iPoi empioyees of agencies and goveriment
ecntracta�� frcr� �dv�rse persa�nef aetions dn r��aiia,ian fa� di�cio�ir;� infurnat�ori in a swom cempi��nt al�eging
ce�t�s�: t��Rs �fir!�pr�peracti��ities. Since th2r, the
Le�;slature has rev's_sed this law to afford gre�ter �r�+ect�on io t�es� emp±oyees
t�Ihile ti?is iangua�e is contained �rithir t�e �c�ae ofi �thics, the t;ommis�ion has no }urisdiction or �uthcr�ty t�
prcceed against pe�sons wNo violate this Act. Th�r�fore, a pesson v,rho has dis�loseri ir.formation altegEny impt��er
co�d;ar_=t g�ivernec+ by this faw and wha ma,� suffer a�iv�rsp ��nseq:a�nees as a result sh�usd cont�ct on� ar m�re af
the fc�{lo�vin�: the G�ce of the Chief Inspecter 3�nPra1 in ti�re Ex���tive Office of �e Gavemor, 3he De�art;�ent �f
Le�a[ 4ffa�ts; t!?e Florida Gommission on Human Relations; ar a p�ivate attomev. [Sec: 112.3187 - 112.3189K, Fla
Stat1
17
X. ADDITIONAL INFOR1tiiATI4N
As mentioned above, we suggest that you review the language used in each law for a more detailed
understanding of Florida's ethics laws. The "Sunshine Amendment" is Article I1, Section 8, of the Florida Constitution.
The Code af Ethics for Pub[ic Offcers and Employees is contained in Part III af Chapter 112, Florida Statutes.
Additional information about the Gommission's functions and interpretations of these laws may be found in
Chapter 34 of the Florida Administrative Code, where the Commission's rules are pubiished, and in The Florida
Administrative Law Reports, which until 2005 published many of the Commission's final orders. The Commission's
rules, orders, and opinions also are available at www.ethics.state.fl.us.
If yau are a public officer or employee concemed about your obligations under these laws, the staff of the
Commission will be happy to respond to oral and written inquiries by providing informatian about the law, the
Commission's interpretatians of the law, and the Cammission's procedures.
XI. ONLINE TRAINING
Through a project funded by the Florida Legislature, an online workshop addressing Florida's Gode of Ethics,
Sunshine Law, and Public Records Acts, is now ava�lable. See ww.iog.leamsomething.com for current fees. Bulk
purchase aRangements, including state and local gavemment purchase orders, are avaiiable. For more information,
visit www.ethics,state.fl.us.
18
TAB 7
PALM B EAGH C OUNTY
CODE OF ETHICS AND VOTING
CQNFLICT LAWS
S� ��
� + ��
� - . '�
O
U � � � t1�
� r � X�,
� - s�
'�,�'� ' � r �- �
�� ��
PALM BEACH COUNTY CODE OF ETHICS
A guide for advisory board members
I. PROI�IBITED CONDUCT
As an appointee to a quasi judicial or advisory board, yo� are � Public Official under the
Code of Ethics. As �uch, you must carry out your duties fully, faithfully and ethically.
Misusing your position for private benefit is a breach of the public trust.
The jurisdiction of the Cornmission on Ethics extends to �ll p�1_itical subdivisions who
ha�e adapt�d the C'ode af Ethics by referendum or intericca? agreemeri.
(A) Misuse of official position
You c�nr�ot use your positior_ in any ��ay when ycu knt�w or shoal� lc��ow with
e;�ervisz �f rea�or�able car� that it wozild resuit in F',.1l: ��TCI�L �ENEFIT to:
1. Yo�a;
�. � rn�rrjber of your househoid -- tnis in�iudes d�mP�tic partners and alI
depentt�nts and any emplayer of these �eoplz;
:�. �%our relatives -- parents, children sibl:n�s, grandpz�r,:nts, grandchildren,
n:eces, nephews, uncles, �unts, spcuse, or ar�y of their Pn�pioyers;
4. �n outside employer or a busiizes� of ;��urs, you.r sp�use or domestic
��art�er cr s��neone whe works �c�r th:, s�utside einplcyer or business; for
the pur�ioses of this law, it is considered ye��r b�asiness if you or any
com�inatien of inembers af your househol� o�av� at Ieast 5 percent �f the
1�Page
business' assets (the county, state, or any other regional, local, or municipal
government is NOT considered an outside employer);
5. A customer or client of your outside employer or business (goods or
services during the past 2 years totaling in excess of $10,000);
6. Someone who owes you, or who you owe, at least $10,000, NOT including
a loan you might have with a financial institutian;
7. Civic, union, social, charitable �r religious orga.��izations where you, a
spouse or domestic partner serve as an officer or director.
What does FINANCIAL BENEFIT mean for the purposes of this law?
Anything of value that can be obtained through the exercise of your public
positian that is not shared with similarly situated members of the general public.
Examples: Money, permit, contract, loan
(B) Voting Conflict
You must abstain from vuting or� and nat participate in any matter before the
board that will result in a F1NAI�,rIAL �ENEFIT to you or those persons or
entities described within the misuse of official position section.
Procedure:
l. Publiely discl�sP the na±ure of the conflict betore your board discusse� the
issue;
2. Abstain ull�en t�e v�t� tal�es ?��ace az�ci �o riot ,�ersanally participate in tile
matter;
3. Complete and file a state voring caisflict forn, 18B) with the clerk of your
advisc�r_y bo�rd �nd proli�e a cc�y to tl�e �alni Bea�h County Cc�iru�lissi�j�
on Ethics.
{C`) Prohibited Cantr�ctu�l Reta�i�nships
Sections (A) &(B) reg�late the way you perform your duties as a Coun±y Official_.
This secti�n prohiL�its r;ertain cantra.ctu�'=_ re's_ationships yeu might have in }�our
private capacity that woulcl conflici with y�3ur rublic duties.
2�Page
l. You cannot enter into any contract or other transaction to provide goods or
services with the public entity you serve (municipal, county or taxing
district). This prohibitioti includes any contract between your public entity
and you, your employer, or any business you own (minimum 5 percent of
the business' assets).
(D) Exceptions to prohibited contractual relationships
l. The business is awarded under a system of sealed, competitive bidding to
the lowest bidder, and
(a) You or a member of your household has not participated in the
determination of the bid specifications or the determination of the
lowest bidder;
(b) You or a menlber of yotu household has not used or attempted to use
your influence to peAsuade the agency or any personnel thereof to enter
into such a contract other than by the mere submission of the bid;
(c) Prior to or at the time of the submission of the'�id, you fil� a sta�einent
with the Supervisor of Elections and the Commission on Ethics
disclosing the nature of your interest in the bid submitted.
2. An emergency� purehase or contrac�, which would otherwise vialate this
provisien, must be made in order to protect the health, safety, or welfare of
tlie citizens of your governmental subdivision.
3. Yaur autside e�r�ployer or busir�ess involved is thz only sauLce �f sup�ly
and you ful?y disclos� your �nterest in the outsid� employer c,r businQss ta
,-aur �;�blir g�vern,+r�en�al erltity and th� Commission on rthi�s pr�or ro th�
p��rc;hase, rental, sa.Ie, �easin�, or other bu>iness being tr�ns�ct?c�.
4. Lhe tatai amoun� oi �he transactions in the ag� �etween your outsicie
e<nploy�r c�r bufii�i�ss a�.L y��ar pubiic governmenial ert�ty d�es no� e;���ed
$500 per calendar ye�r:
5. Your otstsi�e �mployer is a state, regiona:, local or miinicipal g�vLrnmeni.
b. VVai��er: Ccnt�(i�ts px•ohibited un�er this sectic�r can be waivec; by ihe
a�pointing Governmental Board, Counsel ar Commission up�r fiill, pul�lic
d.i5cic�s�ire of. the corfi.ict and an affirmative vote af at least fi��� me::ibers oi
1�e .r'.�overnmental EQard, Council or Comir�issi�n.
3�Page
(E) Honesty in Applications for Positions
No person seeking appointment to a government advisory board may make any
false statement, submit any false document, or knowingly withhold information
about wrongdoing.
(F) Disclosure or Use of Certain Information
As a Public Official, you cannot disclose or use information gained through your
public position, but not available to members of the general public, for personal
gain or benefit or for the personal gain or benefit of �thers.
II. GIFT LAW PROHIBITIONS
A. Yot1 cannot ask for or accept a gift worth more than $100 if you know the gift
is coming from a lobbyist, or the lobbyist's employer, who lobbies your
advisory board or the government department that is subject in any way to the
advis�ry board's authority. Lobbyists are required to register with Pali�n Beach
County and to identify their employers. You can access this information at:
http://www.pbc�ov.or�/�lra�plication/aspx/PLRSearchPublicView New,aspx
B. You can�iot accept a gift of any value given to you in exchange ror tr�e way y�u
perfor±n your duties as a Public Official.
III. GIFT L%�.� RE�'ORTLNG
A. Pu�lic C'ff:cia�s who receive any giit warth more �har� $1Ci0 mus� file an annual
g��t discl�s��rv report with the Palm Beach C�t;nty C�r����iss�on cn Eth?cs no
lat�r tl�a� i�icverr�b�r 1 of each year t�eg�nning �Tcsve:��b�r 1, 2� 1 l, for tlie
perio:i zndi.�g Se�ter�lber 30 of eacri year. If you d� �i�� ; eceive a gift �vorth
mLre th�r� �?C�Q d?zz•ing a given reparting f�eriori, you d� n�t ha�v� �c� fiie an
ar�niiai gift disclosure report. The gift re,�orr ��,:m c�y �v fc�und at
���vw.palmb�acilcountvetliics.com and requL� the follcwing inforr�_�tion:
? . l��te received
2. vescription of gift
3. Vaiue of gift
4. Name and address of person giving the gi�'t_
4�Page
(Those officials who are already required by state law to report gifts shall
continue to follow state law requirements and do not need to file Palm Beach
County's anr.ual form. Copies af the state's gift rep�rting forms must be filed
with the Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics.)
B. A gift means anything of economic value, whether in the form of money,
service, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitalit��, or goods ;�ou do not pay for.
Food and beverages consumed at a single setting or a meal are considered a
single gift.
C. A gift does NOT mean:
1. Political contributions specifically authorized by state law;
2. Gifts from relatives or members c�f one's h�usehold;
3. Awards for professional or civi.I achievement;
4. Materiais such as booics, reports, periodicals or pamphlets which are
solely informaiional or of ar� advertising nature;
5. Gifts solicited by Public Officials on behalf of the government in
performance of their official duti�s for use sol�ly by the government in
conducting of�cial business.
I�. N�JNINT�RFERENCE WITH C�MVIISS�O� �l� ETHICS AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL
A. Pul�lic Officials shall not retaliate against, punish, threaten, harass, or penalize
anyone for �ommur�icating, coo�eratin� �.�itl:, er ass:sting the C��nmission en
Ethi�,s or the Inspector General.
�. �'u'�lic 7ffici�ls shall not int�rf;re �v:th cr uhstr�;c�, �r at��7npt to inierfere with
�r ��stract, any ir_v�stigati�r_ conductett �y tl�c �c�rru�iissic�r� c�n Ethics or t�:e
?nsrector General.
V. �A�,M BEACH COUNTY COMMISSIUN Q�i �TI-�ICS
A. The Cammission on Ethi:,s is an i.r�d�pende�t oedy tt�at wi11 in�erpret a:�d
enforce the Code ef Ethics, pravide advisory apinions to aIl Pu�lic Officials
upon rec�uest, and �ro vide or�going training programs.
' B. The Commission on Ethics will hear cases involving vioiations af the Code of
E�hics.
5�P�ge
l. A violation of the Code of Ethics subjects a Public Official to removal,
public reprimand, and a fine of up to $500. The Commission on Ethics
may also order a Public Official to pay restitution when the Public
Official or a third party has received a monetary benefit as a result of
the Public Official's violation. In addition, contracts, permits, or any
other government approvals gained as a result of a violation may be
rescinded or declared void by the Board, Counsel or Cominission of
your political subdivision.
The Commission on Ethics may refer certain violations of the Code of
Ethics to the State Attorney to be prosecuted as a first degree
misdemeanor. Violation of a first degree misdemeanor will subject you
to a fine not to exceed $1000, imprisonment not to exceed onP year, or
both. Provisions that may subject you to prosecution:
(a} Misus� oi public position
(b) Entering into prohibited contractuai relationships
(c) Using false inforniation in advisory board applications
(dl Accepting gifts that are prohibited �y the Code of Ethics
(e) Int�rfPring with investigations of the Commission on Ethics or
the Inspector General
VI. A.DVISORY OPINIONS.
Public Offi�iais, Public Emplayees and Citizer�s may seek guidance from thP
Commission on E� hics a.s to wheth�r a parti cular course of a.;tion cr serivs of faLt wcu�cl
violate the code of etrics. C)ffic�als Inay s=ibnlit ail pertinent faLts an�i circumstan�.es :n
writir�g r_� the Commi�s�on �n Ethics, 26?3 ;'i�ta aark�r�y, Wes� Palm Beacl�, FL 3�4a i
nr �y e-mail t� et'�ics��pbcaov.c�n1
VII. CO�'VIPLAINT�
Public Officiais Gan report vialGtians o; the co�e of ethics by �ling an et�iics complaint
with th� Crnnmissi�n ��:� Ethics. Coniplaiti� f�rms r? �e fouiid on the t�QE websitL. To
be Iegaily sufficien±, a complaint rnusi be su�:nitted ander oath or �ffirmation, �aseu
pririariiy upon t'r:e coinplair�ant's personal icnowiedge anci constitute a viclation �f the
code of ethics by an Empio_yee �r afficiai vvho is subject to the code.
6�Page
Any information related to a suspected violation of the code of ethics may be sent to the
Commission on Ethics or Inspector General for evaluation.
VIII. SIJMMATION
This guide is intended only as a summary of provisions contained in the Palm Beach
County Code of Ethics that wottld apply to Public Officials. T'he complete Code of Ethics
is available online at: http://www.pbc�ov.con�/ethics/pdf/Ethics Code �df or ask your
advisory board liaison.
7�page
CODE OF ETHICS
(Effective date June 9., 2011)
Sec. 2-441. Title; statement of purpose.
This articie shall be known as the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics. This code of ethics is enacted
pursuant to Florida Constitution, Article VIII, Section 1(g), Florida Statutes, ch. 125, and the Charter of
Palm Beach County. The Municipalities located within Palm Beach County are subject to the provisions
of this Code of Ethics pursuant to referendum. The purpose of this code is to provide additional and
more stringent ethics standards as authorized by Florida Statutes, �112.326. This code shall not be
construed to authorize or permit any conduct or activity that is in violation of Florida Statutes, ch. 112,
pt. III. This code of ethics shall be deemed additional and supplemental to any and all state and federal
laws gaverning ethical conduct of officials and employees, as well as all tocal laws, rules, regulations and
policies.
Officials and employees in the public service shall be conscious that pubtic service is a public trust, shall
�e impart9al and devoted to the best interests of the people �f Palm Beach County, and shall act and
conduct themselves so as not to give occasion for distrust of their impartiality.
Nothing herein shall abridge employees' constitutionat right to collective bargaining.
Sec. �-442. Dzf�nitions.
The fc�liowing words, terms and phrases, when uszd in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to
them �n this section, except where the context cl2arly indicates a different meaning:
Advisory board sha�l mean any advisory or quasi-judicial boAr� created by the board of county
c�mrriiasif�ners, �y the iQCal municipal gaverning bodies, or by th2 m4y�rs wh� serve as chief executive
of�icers pr by m�y�rs vaho are not members of loca! municipa' governPra� �o�ies.
4irs�pm�r �r c�is�it me�ns any perso� or entity to which an c�F�cial or �m�loyee's �utside employer or
busines� �1a5 S4� pp;ied goo�s or services during the �re��i�us twP�t}°-f�ur (2�i) :nonths, having, in the
aggregatP, a value greater than ten thousand dgilars ($10,000):
�1c�rnssti� qar�ner is an adult, unrelated by b�oc�d, wri�h 4vht�m an Gnm�rEiec� er sepa�ated official or
ernplo�fee na� a� �xcfusive committed relationship and ma�ntair�s a mut�ai resiclence.
Fi�arriarf �ienefii i�eludes any mor:ey, servicw, license, permi#, cor�tract, �uthorization, loan, t�avel,
en�e�*air:mvnt ii�JSE}lt8J1��/ gratuity, �r any pramise �f any of these, or any#hsrtg else of value. This term
does nat include campa±gn c�ntributions authcrized by �av..
Household Member includes anyone whose primary resid�nce is in the offic±al or employee's home,
inciudin� non-relatives who are not rent payers or employees of the heaa or the household.
Insp�ctor ger��raf snall mean th� office establ+shed in article XI! cf �his c�ap%�r.
1�Page
Lobbying shall mean seeking to influence a decision through oral or written communication or an
attempt to obtain the goodwill of any county commissioner, any member of a local municipal governing
body, any mayor or chief executive officer that is not a member of a local municipal governing body, any
advisory board meniber, or any employee with respect to the passage, defieat or modification of any
item which may foreseeably be presented for consideration to the advisory board, the board of county
commissioners, or the local municipal governing body lobbied as applicable.
Lobbyist shall mean any person who is employed and receives payment, or who contracts for economic
consideration, for the purpose of lobbying on behalf of a principal, and s!�all include an employee whose
principal responsibility to the employer is overseeing the employer's various relationships with
government or representing the employer in its contacts with government. "Lobbyist" shall not include:
(1) any employee, contract employee, or independent contractor of a governmental agency or
entity lobbying on behalf of that agency or entitq, any elected local official when the official is
lobbying on behalT of the governmental agency or entity which the official serves, or any
member of the officiai's staff when such s�aff mernber is lobbying on an occasional basis on
behalf of the governmental agency or entity by which the staff member is employed.
(2) any person who is retained or employed for the purpc,se of representing an employer, principal
or client only during a publicly noticed quasi-judicial hearing or comprehensive plan hearing,
provided the person identifies the employer, pr:ncipal or client at the hearing.
(3) any ex�iert witness who is retained or em�iloyet! by an employer, principal or client to provide
only scientific, technical or other specialized information provided in agenda materials or
testimony only in public hearings, so long as the expert identifies the employer, principaf or
client at the hearing.
(4) any person who �obbies only in his or her individual capacity for the purpose of self-
representation and without compensation.
(5) any employee, contract employee, or independent contractor of the Palm Beach County League
of Cities, Inc., lobbying on behalf of that entity.
@�}icia! or employee means any official o� �mpioye2 of the county or th� rriunicipalities located within
the co�nty, whether paid or unpaid. The term "�m�lo,vee" �ncludes but is not limited to al! managers,
u'epartment heads and personnei �f the �aun�y or tE�e municipQiities located within the county. The
term �Iso in�luues c�ntr��t person�ei ar� cantract admiri�trat�r� ,��rf�rmin� a governmert function,
an� �hief executive officer w�o is not part of t�e iccai �oti��r�ing koc#y. The tEr►n '�official" shali mea►
�nerrb�rs c�f *he board of courjty comrr�issioners, � mayar, members of f�ca! municipal governing bodiss,
��t� mPr�bers a�pointed by the ba�r� of �our�tv cornmissioner5, mer►��ers of local municip�! govRrnir�g
badies er rnayars or chief execu#ive offic�rs that are n�t n��mbars of Ic�cal municipal governing br��y, a�
applicable, to serve on any advisory quasi ju�icial, or any other board of the county, state, or any c�ther
regional, lacal, mur,icipal, or cor�arate entity.
Qutside employer or business includes:
(1j Any en�ity, other than the cour�ty, the state, or any ether federal regional, local, or muni�i�aai
�overnment entity, �f uvhich the official or emplcyee is a r�embEr, off;cia{, director, propr�2t�r,
partner, ar empl�yee, and f�•om which he or shE receiv�s cc,mpensation fpr services rend�rea or
go�ds sold or procluced. Far pur��,ses ofi this ��fi�iti�n, "compensati�n" c�oes n�# include
reimbursement for necessary expenses, includir�g tr�vel expens�s; or
(2) Any entity located in the county or which do?s business with or is regulatpd by the county or
municipality as �p�licable, in which the ofificial or employee has an ownership interest. For
_ _
2�Page
purposes of this definition, an "ownership interest" shall mean at least five (5) percent of the
total assets or common stock owned by the official or employee or any combination of the
official or employee's household members, spouse, child, step-child, brother, sister, parent or
step-parent, or a person claimed as a dependent on thE official or err�ployee's iatest individuai
federaltax return.
(3) The term outside employer or business shall not apply to an employee who is employed by a
certified bargaining agent solely to represent employees.
Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics means the commission established in §2-254 et seq. to
administer and enforce the ethics regulations set forth herein, and may also be referred to as the
"commission on ethics" in this article.
Persons and entities shall be defined to include all natural persons, firms, associations, joint ventures,
partnerships, estates, trusts, business entities, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other
orgariizations.
Relative unless otherwise specified in this ordinance, means an individual who is related to an official or
employee as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, neph�w, niece,
husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law,
stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, half sister,
grandparent, great grandparent, grandchild, great grandchild, step grandparent, step great grani�parent,
step grandchild, step great grandchild, person who is engaged to be married to the official or employee
or who otherwise holds himself or hersetf out as or is generally known as the person whom the official
or employee in#ends to marry o� with �vhom the official or employee intends te form a h�us�hold, or
any other natural person having the same le�al residence as the officia! or emp{oyee.
Transaction shall refer to the purchase or sale by the county or municipality of goods or services for a
consideration.
Vendor means any persan or �ntit�,r wh� 3�as a pending bid proposal, an offer or req:�est to seli g�acls cr
services, sell or I?ase re�i ar persoral �roperty, or who current!y sells goods or serv�ces, �r se!!s er leases
real or persona! �roperty, to th� cr,unty Gr murici�ality in�olved in the subject cvntra�t c�r �ransactior as
auplicable. F��r th¢ purp�svs cf this �efini:it?n a vPndor �ntity i,�cludes ar� o�nrner, d�r�ctor, rnar�3�e� AY
�mpioyee.
Sec. 2-443. Qrohibite�! conda:.t.
(a} lVllis:�se of �u+�lFC Q�ce ar employment. An afficial or employee �hail noT use his �r her offic�al
position or office, or #zke or fa+l to take any action, or influence others tc #ake ar fail to t�ke any
action, :n a marner which he or she knows or should krow with the �xer�is? of reasonable eare
�viA resuft in a specia� �inan�ia� benefit, not shared with sirnil�riy situate� members cf the
genera! public, for any of the felf�wing persons or Pntities:
(1) H:mself cr herself;
�2) His c�r her s�o�se cr dar�estic pa�ner, househ�ld mzmber or persons claimed as depe�dents �n
the official cr en�pioy�ee's larest ;ndividual federai incame tax retu; ri, o� the ernp�oyer or
busin�ss of any c�f thes� �eople; �
(3) A si�ling or step-sibling, child or step-chiid, parEnt or step-�arert, niece or nephew, uncl� or
aunt, or grandparent or grandchiid of either himself or herself, or of his or her spou�e or
domestic partner, or the employer or business of any of these p�ople;
_ _ _ _ _
3�Paoe
(4) An outside employer or business of his or hers, or of his or her spouse or domestic partner, or
someone who is known to such official or employee to work for such outside employer or
business;
(5) A customer or client of the official or errployee's outside emp+oyer or business;
(6) A substantial debtor or creditor of his or hers, or of his or her spouse or domestic partner--
"substantia!" for these purposes shall mean at least ten thousand dollars ($10,OOQ) and shall not
include forms of indebtedness, such as a mortgage and note, or a loan between the official or
employee and a financial institution;
(7) A civic group, union, social, charitable, or religious organization, or other not for profit
organization of which he or she (or his or her spouse or domestic partner) is an officer or
director.
(b) Corrupt misuse of officia/ position. An official or employee shall not use his or her official
position or office, or any property or resource which may be within his or her trust, to corruptly
secure or attempt to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself, herself, or
ottjers. For the purposes of this subsectian, "corruptty" means done with a wrongfui intent and
for the �ur�ose of obtaining, or compensating or receivirg comper�sation for, any benefit
resulting from some act or omission of an ofFicial or employee which is inconsistent with the
proper performance of his or her public duties.
(c) Disclosure of voting conflicts. County and municipal officials as applicable shall abstain from
voting and n�t participate i� any matter that wil! result in a special financial bpnefit as set forth
in subsections �a)(1) through (7) above. The official shall publicly di�ci�se the nature 6f the
conflict and when abstaining from the vote, shall complete and file a State of Florida
Commission on Ethics Conflict Form 86 pursuant to the requirements of Florida Statutes,
§112.3].43. S'smu!t�neous!y with filing Form 8B, the official shal! su�m±# a cepy of the cornpletEd
fiorm to the courty commission on ethics. Officials who abstain and d�sclose a voting c�nflict as
_ set forth herein, shall not be in violation of subsection (a), provided the official does not
otherwise use his or her office to take or fail to take any actian or infl�aence others to take or
fail to take a�iy action, in any other manner which� he cr she knows or shouid know with the
exercise of r�asr�nable care will result in a s�?cial financial benefit, r�o# sharecl with similariy
situ�ted r;�ernbers of the general public, as sei forth in subssctions (a;�1� through {7).
(d) �o.ntrsr�tusrl relat%onsnips. No official or employee �hai! entPr irtc� any c�n#ract or other
�rans�ctian fer gooc�s Qr serv+ces with their respective co�n�y or rn�an?L��a�i�y. Tnis prohibition
�>€ten�s to �!I ct�n�r��ts �r ±r�nsactions between the c�unt;� c�r rr�!_�nicipal�:y as �pplicak{e or �ny
pei�on, a�e:�cy or e�tity actin� fc,r the county o+ municipality �s a;.plica�{�, and th� officiai or
err3�lov�e, dire�sly t�r indirectly, or the official or emplQye�`s �E,tsi�� ernployer �r busi�ess. Rn�,r
su�h contra;.�, ��reernent, c�r business arrangement ent€rsd irt� in s�ialati�n of th�s sia�sECtion
rray E�e rescended or �eciared void by the board c�f county cc�rri:n�ssinnFrs �urs���nt to § 2-448(c)
�r by th� iara! municioal gc�verning body pursuant to IocGi ar�in�ne� as applicable. This
pral�ibiEion shali �ot apply to empioyees who en�er �nta conLra�ts w�ih Falm Seach County or a,
rnurici�;ality as par� �f their efficial duties with t�e county �r th�t m�nieipa4i�y. This prohibition
also shall not appiy to officials or em�loyees who purchase gocds from th� county or
municipality on the same terms availabie to all members �3f th� �ublic. This prchibition shall
also r�et apply to advi3ory 'aoard members pr�vi�ecE �h� subject contrac� �� traiisaction is
d�sclased �t a duly naficed pubiic meeting c�f the ��v�rr,ir�g bo�y ar�d the advisory board
rrPmber"s board provides no regulatian, oversight, rr�anaoement, c=r �elicy-s�tting
recommendations re�arding the sub}ect contract or transa;,tio�.
(e) Exceptions and waivQr. The requirements of subsectian (d) �bove may bP waived as it pertains
to advis�ry board members where the advisory board member's board is purel�� advisory and
_ _ _ _ _
4�Page
provides regulation, oversight, management, or policy-setting recommendations regarding the
subject contract or transaction. No waiver shall be allowed where the advisory board member's
board is not purely advisory and provides regulation, oversight, management, or policy-setting
reeammendations regarding the subject cantract or transaetion. Waiver may be effected by the
board of county commissior�ers or by the local municipal governing body as applicable upon full
disclosure of the contract or transaction prior to the wa�ver and an affirmative vote of a majority
plus one of the total membership of the board of county commissioners or the local municipal
governing body as appticable. In instances in which appointment to the advisory board is made
by an indiv:dual, waiver may be effected, after full disclosure of the contract or transaction at a
public hearing, by the appointing person. In addition, no official or employee shall be held in
violation of subsection (d) if:
(1) The business is awarded under a system of sealed, competitive bidding to the lowest bidder
and:
a. The official or employee or member of his or her household has in no way participated in
the determination of tne bid specifications or the determination of ihe lowest bidaer;
b. The official or empfoyee or member of his or her househoid has +n no way used or
attempted to use the official or employee's influence to persuade the agency, governmental
entity or any personnel thereof to enter such a contract other than by the mere submission
of the bid; and
c. The eff'scial or employee, prior to or at the time of the su�mission of the bid, has filed a
statement with tFre supervisor of elections and the cc�rnmission on ethics, disclosing th�
nature of the interest in the outside employer or business submitting the bid.
(2) An emergency purchase or contract which wouid otherwise violate a provision of subsection (d)
m�st be made in order to protect the health, s�fet�, or �,�elfare of ±he citizens of the county or
municipality as applicable.
(3) The o!�tside employer or business involved is the only source of supply within the county or
municipafity as applicable and there is full disclosure by the official or employee of his or her
interest in the outside employer or business to the�county or municipality as applicable anei the
@Yh4GS r_6��mission �rior to the nurchase, r�nzal, =�ie, le�ci�g, �r other business being
transacted.
(4j ihe total amount of the coniracts or transac*ic�ns �n ih� aggregate between the autside
er:�pl�yer or business and the county or mu�icipality as ap�a{�cab!e does n�t exceed five hundred
�c�llars ($5�J0) pe� Lal�ndar year.
(5) Edc�twi"thst�ndi7g any �rovision to the contr�ry, subscetion (�j shali not be ccnstrued to prev�nt
:,r: em�l�yee from seeking part-tim� er?��l�ymert �vith �r? o�+.ride 2rnpl�y�er who has entered
inr� a c�n�ract for goods ar sen!ices with tt�e court� or m�n�4i��1:�� �s a��licab!e provided that:
a. The �mployee or reiative af the empla� dces nc� wark in �he county or municipal
department as applicable which wili enforce, o4fe�see ar administer the subject contract;
and
b. The dGtside empl�yment would n�t ir:terf�re wi�h or ethe�wise +mpair his dr her
ir.ae�endence of judgmpn# or otherwise interfer? wirh the full �nd faithful performance of
hi� or her public duties to the caunty f�r municipality as appli�;ablp; and
�. t� � employee or relative �f the e�nployee has not pa�ti;,��atett in d2tzrmining the subj�ct
contract requirements er awarding t�z tt,ntrac�; an�
d. the erripioyee's jo�a respQnsibilities anr� j�b d�scri�tioE� w;:l r:ot re�uire him or her to be
invoived ir� the outside employer's contract in ar�y �,ray inciuding, but limited to, its
enforcement, oversight, adrr�inistration, amendment, extension, termination or
forbearance;and
_ _
S�Page
e. the employee demonstrates compliance with applicabie merit rules regarding outside
employment and obtains written permission from his or her supervisor; and
f. The employee has obtained a conflict of interest waiver from the chief administrative officer
and the employee's ciepartment head of the county or municipality based on a finding that
no conflict exists. The employee shall submit the request for waiver in writing and under
oath. The request for the waiver shall be signed by the employee under oath or afFirmation
on an approved form provided by the Commission on Ethics. The document shall contain
written acknowledgment of compliance with the provisions of (5ja. through (5)e. of this
subsection, together with such pertinent facts and relevant documents that support such
waiver. A waiver under this subsection must be approved by both the employee's
supervisor and chief administrative officer of the county or municipality. The county or
municipality shall record such waiver in the employee's personnet file and shall submit a
copy of the waiver and all related documents to the commission on ethics. The commission
on ethics in its discretion may elect to review, comment on, or investigate any waiver. The
commission on ethics review or investigation shall not deiay an employee's ability to take
the part time employrnent.
g. Official law enforcement overtime or extra duty details. The provisions of subsection (d)
shall be waived for outside employment when that employment consists of a certified police
agency uniformed external security or extra duty detail, contracted or administered by the
police agency as applicable. For the purpose o� this subsection, all records of external, extra
duty or overtime security defaiis, inctuding supervisor approvai, identity of contracting
parties, and including time, date and manner of detail shall be maintained by the individual
contracting police agency, records of which shall be accessible to the public subject to state
public records disclosur2 exemptiors.
� (#) Acceptirg trave! expenses. No off�ciai or empl�yee shall aecept, directly or indirectly, any t�avel
expenses including, but not limited to transpartation, lodging, meals, registration fees and
incidentals from. any county or municipal contractor, vendor, service provider, bidder or
praposer as applicable. The bqard of caunty commissioners or local municipa! governing body as
applicable rnay waive thp requirements of this subsecti�n by a majority vote of the �oard o!
local municip�l gc,ver„ing pody. T�ie prc�visions of this su6section sha!! rot apply to tr�ve!
experses paid by other goG�ernrrsentai ?ntities or �y organizations af which the coun±y �r
municipality as appiicabfe is a mern#�er if t1�e trave! is reiated to that membership.
(�) �ontingent fee prohi,�iti�n. No �erso�� shall, in �vhcl� or in par� pay, give 0!' �gree i� �a°,� or give
a car�tingency fee io anather• perst�i�. Nc person st ir �vncl� or in part, receive ar agr�e to
re�e3ve a con�ingency fee. r�s used hersin, °�an±6ngen�y �ee" means a fee, bonus, car�rn€ssi�n,
f�r nonmonetary benefit a� � orr��3ensati�n wh€ch is d�penden� on ar in any way cont�ngent er
the passa�e, defeat, �r rr•��d�fic�t_fon of: an c�rdinance, resoluticr, action or ciecisic�n of th� �aoarr;
of county commissir�ners or I�ca! municipa! governing body as applicable, a►?y empl�yee
authorized to act c�n behalf of the board of county corrmissione�s or local mu;�i�ipal g�verning
body as �ppl:ca'ale, the c.c�ur�ty �dminisirator 9r municipaf administrator as ap�licab'e, or ar:y
action or decision of an advisory board or comm�ttee. �`his prohibition does not apply to real
estate bmkers when acting in the c�urse cf their profession as regu'ated bv §�475.001-
475.5�1$, Flor Stst►�tes, as may be am�nded. Nothing in this section �nay be construed tc
prahibit any salesaersc�n from ergaging in Izgitimate government business an �,ehalf of a
company rrom receiving compehsation rr cer:�mission as par� of a bona fide contr�ctua!
arrangernent with that c�mpany provided such compensation or commission is ordinary and
customary in the industry. Nc�thing �� this section may be construed to prohibit an attorney
_ _ _ __
6�Page
from representing a client in a judicial proceeding or formal administrative hearing pursuant to a
contingent fee arrangement.
(h) Honesty in applications for positions. No person seeking to become an official or employee, or
seeking ta enter into a contract to provide goa�s or services to the county or municipality as
applicable, may make any false statement, submit any false document, or knowingly withhold
informati�n about wrongdoing in connection with employment by or services to the county or
municipality as applicable.
(i) Disclosure or use of certain information. A current or former official or employee shall not
disclose or use information not availa�le to members of ths general public and gained by reason
of his or her official position, except for information relating exclusively to governmental
practices, for his or her personat gain or benefit or for the personal gain or benefit of any other
person.
Sec. 2-444. Gift law.
(a) �1) No c�unty commissioner, member of a local governing body, mayor or chief executive when not
a mem�er cf the governing body, ar employee, or any other person ar business entity on his or
her behalf, shall knowingly solicit or accept directly or indirectly, any gift with a value of greater
than one hundred dollars ($100) in the aggregate for the calendar year from any perscn or
business enrity that the recipient knows, or should know with the exercise of reasonable care, is
a vendor, lobbyist or �ny principal or employer of a lobbyist who lobbies, sells or leasps to the
county or mur,icipal'sty as applicable.
(2) No lobbyist, vendor or principal or employer of a lobbyist that lobbies the county or a
municipality shail knowingly give, directly or indirectly, any gift with a value greater than one
hundr�d dollars ($100) in the aggregate for the calendar year to a pers�n +Nho ±he vendor,
lobbyis±, or principa! knows is an official or employee of that coun�y or mur,icipality. For the
purposes of this subsection 2-444(aj(2), the term vendor also includes any person or entity that,
because of the nature of.their business, may respond to an invita#ion to bid, request for
praposal or ather procur apportunity that has been published by the county or a
municipzlity.
(bl (i) No arvisory k�o�rcf inernt��r, or any other person an his or her kehalf, shali knowin'iy so!icit or
ace.er�t dit��ctly c,r indirec�iv, �ny gift with a value of greater than c�►�e hurdraci dallars j$10�J) in
ihe a�gr�gate fc�r th� e�l�r;dar year from any v�n�or, lobb�fist, cr ar�� �r9nei�as �� err=:ployer of a
lohbyist, who I��bies ±}?� €�ecipient's advisor,� b9ard, ar any cour:ty �r m�inici�ai d?qartment a�
applicable *.ha: ;s su�;e�t ;n ary �Tay t� the advisory board's au�hori�y.
!2) PJo labby9dt, ��er.�ar, cr pr�nci�,al or employer cf a lobbyist wh� lobl�ies an a�v;sort� bo�r� ar any
�ounty or ;rur;i�ipal c�epartnient �h�t is su�ject in any �a�ay tc �he ad�iscir� no�:d's au:hority,
infl+aerce or advir?, sha�l knowringly give, directly br in�ire�tiy, any g:f� w�ith a vaEu2 gr��ter than
one hundred daliars f�100} in the aggregate for the calendar year to a�ersor� u!�ho the vendor
lobbyist, or principal icnaN�s is a member of that adv9sory boa� For th� purp�ses of this
su�sectien �����(b)�2) �h? t�rrn vendor a�so includes an}� person or er:tity fihat, becaEa4� of the
nature of their busin?ss, may r�spond to an invitation to bid, request for proposai ar o±her
�ro�uremer�t a�ipo�tunity tha� has beer pu(�lished by thP �ounty or a municipaiity.
(c) No ��unti� com:nissi�ner, mernber of a local gov��ning kody, mayor cr chie� executive cfficzr
�;hen �oL a memb�r �� the gaverning body, �r employze, ar an4 Gt{1t�C person or business entity
ar nis or h�r beh�if, shall knU�v�ngly solicit a gift af any vafue from any p�rsos� ��r busin�:;s �nt�ty
±hat the recipient knouvs is a vendor, lob�yist or any prin�ipa! ar �mpi�yer �f a labayis: 4�here
the gift is for the personal benefit of the official or employee, another official or Pmployee or
any relative or household member of the official or employee, No advisory board member or
_ _ _
_ _...
7�Page
any other person or business entity on his or her behalf, shall knowingly solicit a gift of any value
from any person or business entity that the recipient knows is a vendor, lobbyist or any principal
or employer of a lobbyist who lobbies the recipient's advisory board, or any county or municipal
department as applicable that is subject in any way to the a�visory board's authority, influer�ce
or advice, where the gift is for the personal benefit of the advisory board member, another
ad��isory board member, or an official, or any relative or household member of the official or
employee.
(d) For purposes of this section, a principal or employer of a lobbyist shall include any officer,
partner or director ef the principal entity, or any employee of a prir,cipal who is n�t an officer,
partner or director, provided that the employee knows or should know with the exercise of
reasonabie care that the principal employs a lobbyist.
(e) No person or entity shall offer, give, or agree to give an official or employee a gift, and no official
� or employee shall accept or agree to accept a gift from a person or entity, because of:
(1) An official public action taken or to be taken, or which could be taken;
(2) A legal duty perf�rmed or to be perforrr�ed or which couid be performed; or
(3j A lega! duty violated or to be violated, �r which coul� be violat�d by any official or employee.
(f) Girt reports. Any official or employee who receives a gift in excess of one hundred dollars ($100)
shall report that gift in accordance with this section.
(1) Gift reports for officia/s and employees identified by state iaw as reporting individuals. Those
persens required to report gifts pursuant to state law shal! rEport those gifts in the manner
,�rovid�d by Florida Statutes, §112.3148, as may be amended. A cc�py of each report shall be
filed with the county commission on ethics.
(2) ,4i1 other �fficic�ls and employees who are not reporting individuals under state law.
a. Pers�nal Gifts. All efficials and emp�oyees who are not renor�ing in�i��iduals under state law
are r:ot required to repart gifts in excess of cne hundred doliars ($�.00) so long as those gifts
are given to the official or employee by a personal friend or ce-worker and the
circumstances demonstrate that the motivation for the gift was the personal or social
rela#iorship rather than an attempt to obtain the goodwiil or �therwise influ�nce the official
or ernplovee in the performance of his or her Qfficial duties, Faet�rs to be considered in
d�terminir�g whether a gift was moti��ated by a�erst�r�al cr s�cia! r2lationship may include
�iut� s�al! �ot be iirnited to: whether the rei�tEonshin b�g�n befere cr afte� the official or
�mplc�y�e obtained his or her office c+r positior; the p� icr �ssicry o� gif� giving between the
i�di+✓'s�ua�s; ��h�ther �he gift was given in con�etti��� t��,h a hc��i��y c�r c�ther speciai
o�cas:�r; v�rhether ths �anar pers�na�ly paid far the gi�t or s�ught a tax deciuction or
bus:�ess reEmb�a�s?ment; and whether the �nno; gav� fi�r�ilar gi�ts to o+her o�ficia!s or
empl��,���s at ur near the same time. !f the �ers�nal Fr�en� �r c�-+��!rker is a vendor,
lobbyist c�r principal or empbyer of a lob�yist th�t lo�bies th� r.aurty or municipality as
appiica�le, then the official or employee shal! not acce�t a gift in excess of $100 in
�ccordance with subsections (a)(1) a�d (b)t,1.).
b. A!1 c>�h,�� gifts. RIE afficials or employees w�� ar� n�L re�or�ir�g ir.�ivi�uals un��r state iaw
and who receive �ny gift in ex�ess af one nundred dal!ars {$ �C�O), wh'sch is not otherw9se
exeiutie�i or prohibited pursuant to this subsQ�tian, sha{i camp�ete �nc su�mit ar anrual gift
d�scl�s�re report with the county cammissi�n on ethics ro later than tVovember 1 of eacri
y�a! �egin;��ng November 1, 2011, for the p�r�;aci endi��g S�pter��ber 30 of each year. All
of��c:als or emp�oyees wh� are not r�porting indiu�iduals under s�:ate law anc� avho do not
r2ceive � gift in exc2ss of one hund�ed doliars (5100) tiu� ing � giv�r- reporting period shall
nat file an annual gift disclosure report. The annual gift disclo5ure report shall be created by
_.
_
_._ .
8�Page
the county commission on ethics and shall be in a form substantially similar in content as
that required by state law.
(g) For the purposes of this section, "gift" shall refer to the transfer of anything of economic value,
whether in the form of money, service, loan, tr entertainment, hospita�ity, item or promise,
or in any other form, without adequate and lawful consideration. Food and beverages
consumed at a single setting or a meal shall be considered a single gift, and the value of the food
and beverage provided at that sitting or meal shall be considered the value of the gift. In
determining the value of the gift, the recipient of the gift may consult, among other sources,
§112.3148, Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Co�e as may be amended.
(1) Exceptions. The provisions of subsection (g) shall not apply to:
a. Poiitical contributions specifically authorized by state or federal law;
b. Gifts from relatives, domestic partners, and dependents named on the official's or
employee's latest federal income tax return, or one's household member;
c. Awards for professional or civic achievement;
d. Materials such as books, reports, periodicals or pampnlets which are soleiy informational or
of an advertising nature;
e. Gifts solicited or accepted by county or municipal officials or employees as applicable on
behalf of the county or municipality in performanc2 of their official duti�s for use solely by
the county or municipality for a puolic purpose;
f. Publicly advertised offers for goods or serv�ces fram a vendor under the same terms and
condi#ions as are offered or made availa�l� to the general public;
g. Inheritance or other devise;
i. Registration fees and other reiated costs associated with educational or governmental
conferences or seminars and travpl expenses either properly waived or inapplicable
pursuant to §2-443(f), provided that atten�ance is for gavernmenta� purposes, and
attendance is refated to their duties ar.d responsibiliti�s as an official or employee of the
county or municipality;
i. A ticket, pass or admission in connection with public events, appearances or cereinoni�s
r�lated to official county or municipai p�siness, if furr�ished �y a nonpr�fi� s�onsor
crganization of such public event, c�r if �urnisheu p:�rsu�nt ta a contract betw�en the event's
nor�-profit snor�sor an� the county or m�aniripaiity as applicable, provided the sponsor
organizatian does r�ot �mp+ay a lob�yi�t, �rd turther pravi�ed the tick.et, pass or admissian
is givan by a representative Lf the s�ons�r organi�ati�r v�t#�c� is not otherwi�e a ven�or,
I�bbyist, principal �r �mpl�yer of a iobbyist. Pi�r�,��'sthstanding t�e exception as provicfed in
#his su�section, the tick�t, pass er adrn�ss�cn must �e cEiscicsse� in ac:�erdance w3th tne gi{t
law reporting requir�men�s o# subs�c�ions 2-�4�(f)t1} ar�a �f_�{Z);
;. Expenditures made in cor�neeti�n �ri*h an eti�ent sponsore� by a nonprofit organization
funded in whole or in part with publi�. f?ands v�rhose pr�mary function is to encaurage and
attract tvurism or other b�asiness oppa�tunities f�r the benef�t of Palm Beach Courtty �r thp
mu��icipalitees as a�plicabie, pr�vi�'etl �h� span��r organizaLibn does not em�loy a lobbyist,
and furiher provided that the invitation to the event is made by a representative of the
sponsor organizati�n and the represpntative is not o�herwise a ven�or, lobbyist, principal or
employer of a lob'a ��twithstantl;ng the exLeptian as prcvi�eu' in t�is subsection, �h�
exp2nditure must be dise�osed in acs:or�ance �vit� the gift lav� reporting requirements of
subsecfiions 2-444(f)i1) and (fj{2}.
_ _ _
_ __
9�Page
(h) Solicitation of Contributions on Behalf of a Non-Profit Charitable Organization.
(1) Notwithstanding the prohibition on gifts as outlined in subsection 2-444(a) and (b), the
solicitation cf fu�ids by a county or municipal official or employee for a non-profit charitable
organization, as defined under the Internal Revenue Code, is permissible so long as there is no
quid pro quo or other special consideration, incl�ading any direct or indirect special financia!
benefit to the ofFicial or employee or #o the person or entity being solicited. The soticitation by
an official or employee as contemplated herein, is expressly prohibited if made to any person or
entity with a pending application for approva! or award of any nature before the county or
municipality as applicable.
{2) To promote the full and complete transparency of any such solicitation, officials and employees
shall disclose, on a form provided by the Commission on Ethics, the name of the charitable
organization, the event for which the funds were solicited, the name of any person or entity that
was contacted regarding a solicitation or pledge by the official or employee, and the amount of
the funds solicited or pledged if known. The form shall be completed legibly and shall be fiied
with the Commission on Ethics. The form shall be filed within 30 days from the occurrence of
the event for which the solicitation was made, or if no event, within 30 days from the
occurrence of the solicitation.
(3) Officials and employees may not use county or municipal staff or other county or municipal
resources in the solicitation cf charitable contributions described in this subsection.
Sec. 2-445. Anti-nepotism law.
An official may not ap�oint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment,
promotion, or advancemen# in or to a posi#ion in the cc�unty or munic�pality as applicable ir. which the
official is serving or �ver which the official exercises jurisdiction or control, any inciividual who is a
relative or domestic partner of the official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, prpmoted, Qr
advanced in or to a position in the county or a municipality if such appointment, emplQyment,
promotion, or advancement has been advocated by an official, serving in ar exercising jurisdiction or
control over th� cou�ty ar municipalit� as a�propriate, who is � relativp or do�nestir partner of the
individu�! or if such �pFjointmer�t, e��p€cyr �ent, �romotion, or advancernent is mau�e by a colieg'sal baciy
of which a relative a; rfi� individuai �s a m�mber. Hewever this section shal� noi apply to ap�ointsnents
to boards other tha:� those witr l�nti-��i�nning or �oning responsibi�ities in thas� r�run�cipalities G�i�:h less
±han 35,000 papuiaRion. This secti�n d�e� npt appl1� to persor�s servin� in a vcgunt�e. c�pacit�{ ,vt��
provide �m�r�ency madi�:al, f6� or p3lice servie2s. Such persons rriay receive, w�ithout I�sin�
their volunteer statu�, r�irnburse � ents �ar the cas±s of any trairing ihe�y geF relating to t�te �r��,r�sio� of
��lunteer emer�ency rn�dica�, f;refighting, c�r �oli4,e s�rvices and payment f�r any inc��enta� Fxpens�s
relafiing t� those services that tt�e�r pr�r�id�. ?Vlere approval of budgets sha;l not be su�ici?r� te
constitute ` jurisdiction or controf" for the purposes of this section.
(1) For the p�rp�ses of this section, " o�ficiaP' means any ofFicial or emplcy�e in wh�m is vested tne
autherity b� la�v rul�, or regula�i�n, or to wharr the authority has been deie�;ated, tc appdin�,
employ, prQmote, or advance individuals or to recommend individuals for appcintment,
empl�yme7t, promUtio�i, ar advancer•ien� in cor.ne�tion w6th employinen� in the eounty �r
municipality 4s appl9cable.
;2) For the pur�os�s af *.his s2ction, "ratative" means spouse, parenr child, s;k�fing, uncle, aur,t, first
cousin, nephew nie�s, father-in-I�w, mother-in-law, son-in-law, �aughter-in-'aw, br�ther-in-
I�w, flster-in-law, 5tepf�ther, stepmozher, stepson, ;tepdaughter, �tepbrother, stepsister, haif-
brother, or half-sister.
_ __
10�Page
Sec. 2-446. Ethics training.
(a) Officials and employees, as public servants, are considered stewards of the public trust and
should aspire to the highest level of integrity and character. Officials and employees shall be
informed of their eth;cal responsibiliti�s at the start of their pubiic service, and shall receive
updates antl training materials on ethics issues throughout the span of their public service. The
county administrator or municipal administrator as applicabie shall est�ablish by policy a
mandatory training schedule for all officials and employees which shall includ� mandatory
periadic follow-up sessions. This policy may also address ethics training for entities that receive
county or municipal funds as applicable.
(b) The commission on ethics shall develop and deliver, or contract with other entities to develop
and deliver, training programs. The commission on ethics shali coc�rdinate and cooperate with
all affected county or municipal entities, departments, agencies, boards, councils and
commissions to ensure that effective and meaningful training experiences are delivered in a
timety and efficient manner.
Sec.2-447. Noninter`erence.
It shal( be a violation of this article for any person: (a) to retaliate against, punish, threaten, harass, or
penalize any person for communicating, cooperating with, or assisting the eommission on ethics or the
inspector generai; or (b) to interfere, obstruct or attempt to interFere or obstruct without valid legal
basis any investigatEon cond�cted by the commission on ethics or the inspector genErai.
Sec. 2-448. Administration, enforcement and penalties.
(a) The cammission on etl�ics shali be empowered to review, interpret, render advisory opinions,
and enf�rce thi� code of ethEcs pursuant to the procedures es�abl�s�ed in the county
rommiss:on on ethics or�inance. Jurisdiction of the cammission or efhics irvith res�ect to
advisory opinions rendersd shall extend to all county� and municipal o.fficials and employees, and
all other persons and entities required to comply with the provisions of this code and the county
lobbyist registration ordinance, including but not limited to lobbyists, their employers and
principals, ancE cdntractors and vend�rs.
(b) A�inding �y the �o►nmission on ethics of a vialaticn af an�,r part of this ��ricie shall subject the
�ersc�n �;r �ntity to pukiiic reprimand, a fine of ua ta five h�nclrec! dcflars ($500}, or both. The
�ommissie�;� or: �thi�, ��y also order the person or entizy tG p�y restitu�i�ar� avh�n the person or
�ntity a� a third �aEty has receive� � pec�aniary ben�f�t as a:�esu�t ��th2 �ersan`� v�o!atiorl.
(c) Jp: rj � fir�d�rtg �r' tne c�m�:�issi�n an ethics that a via6ati�n af chis �r€icte or the IOb�YiSt
registra+i�n �r�inanc� resulted in a contract, gr�rt, subsidy, ?ic��s�, �ermit, franchise, us�,
cet�ific�t�, deve�oprri�nt o�Ger or ather benefit conterrec� by �hE c�4r�t�: �� �nunEci��iit�r as
a(���ECc��1�, '�tiC'Ci SllC�! contract, grant SUbSIC�y, �tC@n5@, �erm fC�riCh3S�, 'tlSE, C2ifI�ICdtQ,
developrner�t ard�r ar other benefit may be rescinded ar deciared vo±d by the board of county
corr�missioners or th2 local municipaf governing bcdy as applic�ble.
(u) �he co�musion c�n ethics rr�ay in its discretion refer wiNful vi�iation� t�f §§2`�43, 2-444(�}, 2-
444(�), 2-�44(c}, z-444(ej, or ?-�47 to the state attorney, Pursuant tc Florida Statut�s, §125.69,
a p�rson wh� vi�iates th� sections of the article set f�s in this §2-448(d) shall �a subject to
�resecution in the n�m� of the state ir, the sanie manrer �s first t�egree ��is�e�r�eanors are
p��secated, ar�d u�on c��viction, such person shaii b� p�nishea k�y a finp r�t to exceed on�
th�usa�iu doliars (��,�t�0), imprisonment not to exceed one (1) ye�r, or both.
_ _. _ .
11�Page
TAB 8
RO�ERT' S RULES OF ORDER
- _ _ _ ' _ "_'_ 1 `C '"'_"' "�����..vv 1 LL�V 1 Vl J
RobertsRules.org � Robert's Rules of Order - Summary
Version
For Fair and Orderly Meetings & Conventions
Provides common rules and procedures for deliberation and debate in order to place the
whole membership on the same footing and speaking the same language. The conduct of
ALL business is controlled by the general will of the whole mernbership - the right of the
deliberate majority to decide. Complementary is the right of at least a strong minority to
require the majority to be deliberate - to act according to its considered judgment AFTER
a full and fair "working through" of the issues involved. Robert's Rules provides for
constructive and democratic meetings, to help, not hinder, the business of the assembly.
Under no circumstances should "undue strictness" be allowed to intimidate members or
limit full participation.
The fundamental right of deliberative assemblies require all questions to be thoroughly
discussed before taking action!
The assembly rules - they have the final say on everything!
Silence ineans consent!
• Obtain the floor (the right to speak) by being the first to stand when
the person speaking nas finished; state Mr./Madam Chairman. Raising
yaur hand means nothing, and standing while another has the flaor is
out of order! Must he recoa ized by the Chair before speaking!
• Debate can not begin until the Chair has sta.ted the motion or
resolution ar.d aske� "are you ready for the question?" If no ane rises,
the chair calls fc: the vote!
• Before ti mation is stated '�y the ��iair (the question) members may
su�gest modification cf t�e motion; the mover can rnodify as he
pl�,as�s, or ev�r withd�aw tne m�tian without consent of the secander;
if tnover modifies, the seco��er can w�ithdraw the seeond.
o The "irr�mediateiy �endin� question" is t�ie last �uestion stated by the
Chair! Motiorv?Zesoluti�n - A.*�:enc�ment - Motian to Postpore
• The member moving th� "immediateiy pending question" is en±itted ±�
preference to the t7oo*'
• No memb�r can sp�ak twice to the same issue until every�ne else
�jishing ta s�eaic h�s s�oken ta it ance►
� All remarks rnus± bP direc+e� to the Chair. Remarks must I�� co�rtecus
in langu�ge and d�partm°nt - avoid all person�lities, nev�r allud� tc
others by narne or ±o motives!
• The �genda and aIi committee reports are merely recommendati��ns!
When presented to the assembly and the Qu�stion is stated, �eba±e
begins and changes occur�
http:/lwww.robertsrules.orgfindexprint.html 4/4/2013
� _ � » �. ., � ..
The Rules
• Point of Privilege: Pertains to noise, personal comfort, etc. - may
interrupt only if necessary!
• Partiamentary Inquiry: Inquire as to the correct motion - to
accomplish a desired result, or raise a point of order
• Point of Information: Generally applies to information desired from
the speaker: "I should like to ask the (speaker) a question."
• Orders of the Day (Agenda): A call to adhere to the agenda (a
deviation from the agenda requires Suspending the Rules)
• Point of Qrder: Infraction of the ru!es, or improper decorum in
speaking. Must be raised immediately after the error is made
• Main Motion: Brings new business (the next item on the agenda)
before the assembly
• Divide the Question: Divides a moti�n into two or more separar.e
motions (must be able to stand on their own)
• Co�sider by Paragraph: Adoption of paper is hetd until ali
paragraphs are debated and amended and entire paper is satisfactory9
after all paragraphs are considered, the entire pa�er is tl open to
amendment, and paragraphs may be further amended. Any Prearnble
can not be considered until debate on the body of the paper has ceased.
• Amend: Inserting or striking out words or paragraphs, or substituting
v✓hole paragraphs or resolutions
•�VithdrawlModify Motion: Applies oniy after question is �tated;
mover ca� ac�ept an amendment withc►ut obtaining ±he floor
• Commit 1Refer/Recommit to Committee: State the committee to
receive the question or resolution; if no committee exists inciude size
of comm�ttee desired and method of selecting the members (election or
ap�oir,t�ti�nt).
•�gte�d Debat�: Applies only to the immediately pen�ing c�uesti�n;
ext�nds until a certain time or for a certain peri�a of time
•�.imi� i�ebate: Closing debate at a certain time, o� Iirritir�g to a c�rtain
periad �f tirr�e
• P��rstpor�e t� a Cei-tain Time: Sta.te the time the rmotio�l oY agenda
:t�m will �e resumed
• �bject to �onsiler�tion: Objecti�n m�st be �tatz� �ef�re �iscugsian
or a��ther mation is sta.ted
• I,ay on the Table: Temporari(y suspends further c�nsid�rat?oniacti�n
on perlt�i�la question; may be made after rroti�n t� closc de�ate has
carried cr is pendin�
• Take from the Tabl�: Resumes consideration of item previousiy "laid
on the table" �- state the tr�otion to take from the table
• Re�o�sider: Can be made onIy by ane on the prevuiling side wl
changed position or view
• F'ostpone Indefinitefy: Kii1s the questi�nlres�luti�n for this session �
exception: the motion to reconsider can be made this session
• Previous Qnestion: Closes debate if successful- m�y be moved to
"Close Debate" if preferred
http:%/wuryv.robertsrules.org/indexprint.html 4/4/2013
, � � .. .. .,. ..
• Informal Consideration: Move that the assembly go into
"Committee of the Whole" - informal debate as if in committee; this
committee may limit number or length of speeches or close debate by
other means by a 2/3 vote. All votes, however, are formal.
• Appeal Decision of the Chair: Appeal for the assembly to decide -
must be made before other business is resumed; NOT debatable if
relates to decorum, violation of rules or order of business
• Suspend the Rules: Allows a violation of the assembly`s own rules
(except Constitution); the object of the suspension must be specified
�O 1997 Beverly Kennedy
nttp:/!www.robertsrules.org/indexprint,html 4/4/2013
..____ __ ______________� �_ �..��.�� 1{.1.�.V 1 V1✓
Introduction to Robert's Rules of Order
l. 1�'h��t is Parliamentaiti- Proceclure?
2. �Vli� is Parliamentar� Procedure Important?
3. Example of the Ordei• c�f Busi�less
4. Mations
5. Tvpes of Motions
6. Ho« are Motions Presented�
7. Votin� on a Vl�tion
What Is Parliamentary Procedure?
It is a set of rules for conduct at meetings, that allows everyone to be heard and
to make decisions without confusion.
Why is Parliamentary Procedure Important?
Because it's a time tested method of conducting business at meetings and public
gatherings. It can be adapted to fit the needs of any organization. Today,
Robert's Rules of Order newly revised is the basic handbook of operation for
most clubs, organizations and other groups. So it's important that everyone
know these basic rules!
Organizations using parliamentary procedure usually follow a fixed order of business.
Below is a typical example:
1. CaII to order.
2. Roil cali of inembers present.
3. Reading of minutes �i tast tneet�ng.
4. Officers reparts.
5. Committ�e re�oris.
6, �pecial arders --- Irnport�nt ��isiness �revioe�s�y designated far c�nsideratior at
this meeting.
7. Unfinished business.
$. Neu� business.
9. A:�ulouncements.
10. Adjournment.
1 he method used by members to express themselves is in the form of moving motions.
A rnotion is a propasal that the entire rnembersh�p ta.ke action or a stand on an issue.
Individual members can:
1. Cal1 to order.
2. Second motions.
3. Debate motions.
4. Vote on motions.
http:/".!www.robertsru(es.org/rulesintraprint.htm 4/4/2013
- � Wb.. �. ..� .,
There are four Basic Types of Motions:
]. Main Motions: The purpose of a main motion is to introduce items to the
membership for their consideration. They cannot be made when any other
motion is on the floor, and yield to privileged, subsidiary, and incidental
motions.
2. Subsidiary Motions: Their purpose is to change or affect how a main motion is
handled, and is votzd on before a main motion.
3. Privileged Motions: Their purpose is to bring up items that are urgent about
special or important matters unrelated to pending business.
4. Incidental Motions: Their purpose is to provide a means of questioning
procedure concerning other motions and must be considered before the other
motion.
How are Motions Presented?
l. Obtaining the floor
a. Wait until the last speaker has finished.
b. Rise and address the Chairman by saying, "Mr. Chairman, or Mr.
President."
c. Wait until the Chairman recognizes you.
2. Make Your Motiori
a. Speak in a clear and concise manner.
b. Always state a motion affirmatively. Say, "I move that we ..." rather than,
"I move that we do not ...".
c. Avoid personalities and stay on your subject.
3. W ait for Someone to Second Your Motion
4. Ancther memher wili secon� your rr�c�tion or the Chairman wili call for a
second.
5. if there is no seco�a to your motion it is lost.
6. The Chairman S�ates Your Motion
a. T`�e Chair wi11 say "it has been mov�d ar�d secondec� that w� ..."
Thus plac:n� your ,notion before the r�embers��ip fc�r consider�tion and
a�tion.
b. The membership then either cie�ates your motion or may move �irectiv
to a v�te.
c. �Jnce yt�ur moti �r� is preserted to the membersr�ip �y the s;hairman it
b�cames "a�sembly pr�perty�", and cannot be changed by yca wi.hout t�e
consent of the members.
7. Exp�nding on Yout• Motion
a. Th� tztne tc,r yc:� t�; speak in favor oi yoar moti�� is a� this point in time,
rather :ha� at Eh.e time you present it.
b. Ths mover is alway� all�wed to speak first.
c. All comments �nd debate must be directed to the chair:nan.
d. K_eep to the time limit fer speaking that has been est�b;ishe�.
e. Ti�e r.lover rnay �peak again only af�er c�ther spealcers are fini�hed, uniess
cailec� upon by the Chairman,
8. Putting the Question to the Membership
a. The Chairman asks; "Are you ready to vote on the question?"
ht�p:i!www.robertsrules.orgirulesin±roprint.htm 4i4/2013
- — - - - - --- . ... � ..� ..
b. If there is no more discussion, a vote is taken.
c. On a motion to move the previous question may be adapted.
Voting on a Motion:
The method of vote on any motion depends on the situation and the by-laws of
policy of your arganization. There are five methods used to vote by most
organizations, they are:
1. By Voice -- The Chairman asks those in favor to say, "aye", those opposed to
say "no". Any member may move for a exact count.
2. By Roll Call -- Euch member answers "yes" or "no'" as his name is called. This
method is used when a record of each person's vote is required.
3. By General Consent -- When a motion is not likely tc be opposed, the Chairman
says, "if there is no objection ..." The membership shows agreement by their
silence, however if one member says, "I object," the item must be put to a vote.
4. By Division -- This is a slight verification of a voice vote. It does not require a
count unless the chairman so desires. Members raise their hands or stand.
5. By Ballot -- Members write their vote on a slip of paper, this method is used
when secrecy is desired.
"There are two other motions that are commonly used that relate to voting.
1. Motion to Tabie -- This motion is often used in the attempt to "kill" a motion.
The option is always present, however, to "take from the table", for
reconsicieration by the membership.
2. Motion to Postpone indefinitely -- This is often used as a m�aris of
parliamentar}� strategy and allows opponents of motion ta test th�ir strength
��ithaut an actual vote being taken. Also, debate is once a�ain open on the mair�
motion.
I'arliamentary PreLedu:e is th� best way to get t�i:ngs daue at yaur rneetin�s. But, it
wili onl; wark if you use it pro�erly.
�. Ail�w rn�tions that are in arder.
�. Ii�;j� =:�err�bers obtain the fl�or properly.
3. Speax ciear?y �nd con�isely.
�+. C)bey �h4 rules of debate.
1��Iost importantty, BE COZIRTEG'US.
http:/!www.robertsrules,org/rulesintroprint,htm 4/4/2013
Robert's Rules � Chart of Motions Page 1 of 2
Robert's Rules of Order Motions Chart
RobertsRules:org
Based on Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (IOth Edition)
Part 1, Main Motions. These motions are listed in order of precedence. A motion can be
introduced if it is higher on the chart than the pending motion.
� in the s ection from Robert's Rules.
; PURPOSE: T YOU SAY: �� INTERRUPT] 2ND? DEBATE? AMEND? VUTE?
'§21 Close meeting � move to No Yes No No Majority
adjo�arn ❑Q
��
;§20 Take break I move to No Yes No Yes Majority
recess for ...
Rpgister � rise to
;§19 a question of Yes No No No None
; complaint privilege
,
� I call for the
;§� $ U1ake follow Qrders of the Ye� No No No None
; agenda
day
Lay aside i move to lay
'§� � temporarily the question No Yes No No Majority
on the table
I move the ��
:§16 Close debate previous No Yss No No 2J3
� question � L �U
;} � 5 Limit or extend that debate be �� �� '
;�� � debate N� �'�� ti� Yes 2/3
�_ _� limited to ... �
���` �I move to '
� � � �� Posipone to a ��
�� cert�in ti postpone the �� tio , Yes I �`es Yes Majarity
;ji �� me motior� t ���.� �� ���� ���
�
�� Refe� ta I move t� refer I��
;�� � `'����mmitt�e the moti�r; � [�o �I 1'�s `��s � Yes f��ajority
r_ I� to ... ` � '
�� P�todify w�rding � move to
k
`§� `' of motion amend the No � Yas Yes Yes Major�ty
� � motion by ... ,
I move that th� �— �
;��11 Kill main motion motion be Nc� Yes Yes � Na Majorify
postponed ��
�J� indefinite6y � , �� �
;� § i 0 Bring business I mcve that [� No Y�s � Yes Yes i1;�ajority
before "t�"] ...
�I � � I
http:%�'www.robertsrutes.org/motionsprint.htrn 4/4/2� 13
Kobert's Rules � Chart of Motions Page 2 of Z
�� main mot on) �uUu
Part 2, Incidental Motions. No order of precedence. These motions arise incidentally and
are decide immedi ately.
�� PURPOSE� INTERRUPT� 2ND? DEBATE? AMEND? VOTE?
;§23 Enforce rules Point of Order Yes No No No None
' Submit matter � appeal from
'§ to assembly the decision of Yes Yes Varies No Majority
the chair
I move tc,
`§25 Suspend rules suspend the No Yes No No 2/3
rules
; Avoid main I object to the ��
;§26 motion consideration of Yes No No No 2/3
;
; aitogether the quesiion
;
'§27 Div�de motion � move to divide No Yes No Yes Majority
the que stion
Demand a I move for a
`§ rising vote rising vote Yes No No No None
Parliamentary Parliamentai
;§33 law question inqui�y Yes No f�o Nc N�ne
�
Request for Po:n# of ��
;§33 ��farmation information Ye� � No No No None
���a
Part 3, Motions Tha# B�inS a Question Again Before the Assembly.
ho order �f �;evedence. intro�i�ce onl�when noth__in�else i�er�dir��.�__ .__�____
._..._._..�.___...._,_..�.�__._ __�-W-�.__.._..�...__._
�� PU}��'OS�. 1( S AY; I�#T��:RUPT? 2Nt�? tSE�ATE? !AM V�3T�'? I
Take matte� � move to t«k�� � �� �
��34 from the N� Y�s i No �� tvo Niajo�ity ,
�� fram table t�ble ... �� 'I � J �
�
i�
�� �� �� �' 2/3 �r !
; Carrcei I i,�ove ¢g �� � �� „ I�iajarity
;§35 previous r�scind ... No � Yes Yes � Ye� � with
a�tion � �
� � notac
Reconsider I move to � ��-- � ? � �
§37 motion reconsider ... No �es Varies i N� �� Majori�y `
L�
http:%/www.rGbertsrules.org/motionsprint.htm 414/2013