A landowner who is unhappy with a decision made by the local government about their property can use a law called FLUEDRA to try to work out the issue through mediation before going to court. FLUEDRA applies to any decisions about building, zoning, or other permits made by the government. It’s been around for over 15 years and has been used by many people. Some people think it works well, while others don’t. FLUEDRA makes it harder for local governments to find compromises in zoning disputes. It puts a lot of extra work and costs on the local government, which ultimately makes it less likely to find a compromise. The law doesn’t consider the concerns of people living in the area, and it doesn’t make the property owner pay for the extra costs. This makes it harder for the local government to do its job and find fair solutions. Some changes to the law could make it more fair for everyone involved. The rules for resolving disputes between landowners and the government need to change. The current time limits for both parties to respond are too tight and don’t allow for proper consideration of the issues. The government should have at least 30 days to respond to a request for mediation, instead of just 15 days, to give them enough time to think it over. Also, local governments should be allowed to charge a fee for the mediation process, like they do for zoning applications. This would make the mediation process fairer for everyone involved. The time frames at the start of the FLUEDRA process are unrealistic, and the rules for notifying people about the mediation proceedings need to be changed. Right now, the rules only require certain people to be notified, but it’s unlikely that those people would know about the mediation process. We think that everyone who spoke at the zoning hearing should be told about the mediation, even if they didn’t ask to be told. In the meantime, the local government should choose to tell everyone about the mediation to make it more likely that things will be resolved successfully. The time frame for neighbors to receive the property ownerâs request for relief needs to be made clearer and given more time. Itâs hard to gather all the addresses to send the request in just 10 days. The legislature should also reduce mailing costs by limiting the number of pages in the request and allowing local governments to post the full request online instead of mailing it out to everyone. FLUEDRA gives people 21 days to say if they want to be part of a hearing. But it’s not clear if this includes mailing time. The law should be clearer about this. Also, the law says the hearing has to happen within 45 days, but that’s not realistic. The government should change this and not rely on the parties to agree to extend the time. The special magistrate should be responsible for sending out hearing notices, and the property owner should pay for it. This will save everyone money. Under FLUEDRA, the special magistrate acts as a mediator between property owners and the government in zoning matters. However, neighbors and concerned area residents who object to a zoning application do not have the same status as property owners. They are not given party status and are not entitled to receive the special magistrateâs recommendation. This creates the appearance that their voices are not equal and they are essentially treated as outsiders. This limitation may lead neighbors to feel that the FLUEDRA process is unfair and does not respect their concerns. Zoning hearings take up a lot of time for the local government, and once a decision is made, it can’t be easily changed. The process doesn’t give enough say to neighbors who are affected by the zoning decision. The law should be changed to include them in the process. Also, during the mediation stage, private meetings should be allowed to help reach a compromise. FLUEDRA mandates that if mediation doesn’t work, a special magistrate has to hold a hearing and decide if the local government’s decision was fair to the property owner. But the law forces the magistrate to find against the local government before making a recommendation, which just leads to more arguing. Instead, the magistrate should be able to make a recommendation based on all the facts to resolve the dispute. But right now, they have to be both a mediator and a judge, which isn’t helpful. FLUEDRA puts the special magistrate in a tough spot because they have to decide if the government’s decision was fair to the property owner. If it’s not, they have to recommend a compromise to the local government. But if the government doesn’t respond in 45 days, the recommendation is rejected. This can be a problem if the recommendation needs a public hearing, which takes longer than 45 days. The law should give more time for the government to respond to the recommendation, especially if there’s a need for a public hearing. Get rid of the part in FLUEDRA that lets a landowner skip zoning procedures if the government agrees to grant zoning relief. This could cause problems with due process. Also, FLUEDRA should be clearer about the time limits for the written decision requirement, so everyone knows when it needs to be done by. In simple terms, FLUEDRA needs some changes to be more effective in settling land use disputes. The current process of forced mediation may not work well for disputes that have already had public hearings. By making some adjustments to bring everyone involved to the table and giving local government more incentive to consider compromise, FLUEDRA could be a better way to resolve tough disputes without going to court. This is a list of Florida statutes and rules related to the process of special magistrate hearings for property disputes with local governments. It also includes a court case and some procedural requirements for the hearings. The statutes cover things like the timeline for the hearings, the role of representatives for the parties involved, and the actions the special magistrate can recommend. Overall, it’s about the legal process for handling property disputes with local governments in Florida. This is a legal document about zoning laws in Florida. It discusses specific statutes and court cases related to zoning settlements and public hearings. It is written by lawyers from the Miami-Dade County Attorney’s Office who specialize in land use and environment law. The document is submitted on behalf of a legal section focused on city, county, and local government law.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/fluedra-flawed-but-fixable/
Leave a Reply