In the case of Pleasures II v. City of Sarasota, the court decided that cities can’t give circuit courts the power to review administrative decisions, and that certiorari can only be used for certain types of administrative decisions. The article will discuss how local governments can set up procedures that can be reviewed using certiorari, and give examples of these types of procedures used by Florida local governments. The City of Sarasota denied a business permit for an adult-use business without giving the business a chance to have a hearing or providing a written explanation for the decision. The city said the business could appeal the decision in circuit court, but the court said that wasn’t allowed. The court also said that even if the city could allow appeals in circuit court, it would be wrong to use that for decisions that didn’t involve a hearing. The City of Sarasota and other local governments prefer to use certiorari as the way to review local administrative decisions, as it is quicker and less expensive than a de novo attack for declaratory or injunctive relief. Certiorari review has a short time frame, no discovery, and a decision is based on the record and briefs. The standard of review is whether the decision followed the law and was supported by evidence.
To establish certiorari jurisdiction over a local decision, local ordinances need to provide an administrative process that ends in a quasi-judicial hearing. The local government attorney and commission need to determine how to draft an administrative procedure that results in a proper quasi-judicial hearing. This involves the structure of the hearing and the process to be used.
Quasi-judicial hearings have certain basic requirements to ensure fairness and due process, including providing notice of the hearing, the opportunity to be heard, the ability to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and be informed of all the facts upon which the commission acts. A quasi-judicial hearing must be fair and impartial. This means that everyone involved must be told about the hearing, the decision must be based on the information presented at the hearing, and the person making the decision should not be influenced by outside factors. This is important for making sure that decisions are made fairly and without bias. In the case of Evergreen the Tree Treasurers v. Charlotte County, a group challenged a decision made by the countyâs development review committee (DRC) regarding a housing complex. The opponents were not allowed to present evidence during the meeting and only got a few minutes to speak after the applicants had discussed the project with staff. They filed a request to stop the construction and also appealed the decision. The circuit judge denied the request and also denied the appeal, stating that the DRC was acting in a “staff” role, not a quasi-judicial role. The court reviewed a lower court’s decision and found that the Sunshine Law applies to staff committees making decisions, meaning they have to follow certain rules for public meetings. The court also said the lower court didn’t follow proper procedures in a hearing, and the decision made was not the right kind of decision. The case had merit at first, but now it’s not meaningful because the development has already happened. Another case hinted that staff committees making final decisions also have to follow certain rules. Lyon filed a lawsuit alleging that certain meetings violated the Sunshine Act, which requires public agency board meetings to be open to the public. The appellate court ruled that the meetings in question were just for gathering information and did not violate the Sunshine Act. However, the court did find that the Sunshine Act applied to a formal meeting of the DRS, a county committee. The court also found that the notice for the DRS meeting was sufficient. The lesson from this case is that if a decision involves hearings and applying policies, it may be considered quasi-judicial and have additional due process protections. Hillsborough County has a system in place for orderly decision making and appeal in land use matters, using hearing examiners to ensure fairness in decisions. In the land development code, there are different officials who handle different types of land use cases. They have specific rules to follow and there are ways to appeal their decisions. For example, if someone wants to change the zoning of a property, they would first go to a hearing officer. The officer makes a record of the case and then the county commissioners make the final decision. In other cases, if someone disagrees with a permit decision made by the zoning administrator, they can appeal to a hearing officer. The officer can make a decision just like the administrator could. If someone is not happy with the hearing officer’s decision, they can appeal by following the rules set by state law. Hillsborough County and Citrus County both have effective hearing officer systems for handling land development issues. Hillsborough’s system is complex and may be expensive for smaller areas, but it works well. Citrus County’s system has been involved in some litigation, but it also functions effectively. Overall, both counties’ hearing officer processes are successful in addressing land development matters. FRI was worried that the county might change the zoning rules for their properties, so they asked for a decision to protect their rights. When the county said no to two of their properties, FRI asked for a higher-up to review the decision. That person said FRI had the rights to all four properties, but the county disagreed. FRI took the county to court and won, but then the county appealed. The appeals court said the higher-up’s decision was just a suggestion and that the lower court shouldn’t have changed the county’s decision. The Citrus and Hillsborough county codes have different procedures for administrative hearings. In Citrus, the hearing officer can only review the record before the agency, while in Hillsborough, the hearing officer can conduct a de novo hearing and establish an evidentiary record. This difference raises questions about due process for applicants in Citrus County. The Pleasures II case shows that administrative procedures in local governments must ensure a noticed, due process hearing, or they may be subject to legal challenge. In simple terms, the procedures for administrative hearings in different counties in Florida need to be fair and give everyone a chance to present their case. It’s important to follow the local rules when dealing with land use orders and development orders. This means making sure everyone involved is notified and that the proper procedures are followed. If a decision is challenged, it may need to go through a quasi-judicial hearing before it can be taken to a higher court. When it comes to presenting evidence in these hearings, there are specific laws that need to be followed. These rules are important to ensure that everyone’s rights are protected in the decision-making process. The Florida Supreme Court declined to require written decisions in land use and rezoning cases, but some judges believe it is necessary for fair review. Without a written decision, it’s hard for a court to understand the reasoning behind a zoning board’s decision. This could lead to legal challenges based on federal due process requirements. Some previous court cases also support the need for written decisions in these types of cases. The way decisions in Jennings have been understood and interpreted has been a big issue, especially since rezoning became quasi-judicial in Snyder. There are also challenges with how ethics laws in Florida limit officials from disqualifying themselves from a decision. A case about this issue was published in The Florida Barâs Local Government Section newsletter in 2002. The court made a mistake in analyzing the decision, and there are suggestions for improving the zoning administration. The Hillsborough County Land Development Code has specific articles for different types of appeals and reviews. This text is about a legal case involving land use in Citrus County, Florida. It discusses a specific case where a decision was made for a psychiatric facility to be built on property that was zoned for a hospital. The text also mentions two lawyers who are experts in environmental and land use law. They provide their credentials and the organization they represent. They also mention their commitment to serving the public and improving the administration of justice.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/whats-a-local-government-got-to-do-to-get-reviewed-around-here-review-of-local-administrative-actions-by-common-law-certiorari-after-pleasures-ii-v-city-of-sarasota/
Leave a Reply