Board of County Com'rs of Brevard County v. Snyder

• Citation: 627 So.2d 469
• Decision Date: 07 October 1993
• Docket Number: No. 79720,79720
• Parties: 18 Fla. L. Weekly S522 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BREVARD COUNTY, Florida, Petitioner, v. Jack R. SNYDER, et ux., Respondents.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida

Page 469

627 So.2d 469

18 Fla. L. Weekly S522

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BREVARD COUNTY, Florida, Petitioner, v. Jack R. SNYDER, et ux., Respondents.

No. 79720.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 7, 1993.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 23, 1993.

Robert D. Guthrie, County Atty., and Eden Bentley, Asst. County Atty., Melbourne, for petitioner.

Frank J. Griffith, Jr., Cianfrogna, Telfer, Reda & Faherty, P.A., Titusville, for respondents.

Denis Dean and Jonathan A. Glogau, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, amicus curiae, for Atty. Gen., State of FL.

Nancy Stuparich, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Jane C. Hayman, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, amicus curiae, for FL League of Cities, Inc.

Paul R. Gougelman, III, and Maureen M. Matheson, Reinman, Harrell, Graham, Mitchell & Wattwood, P.A., Melbourne, amicus curiae, for Space Coast League of Cities, Inc., City of Melbourne, and Town of Indialantic.

Richard E. Gentry, FL Home Builders Ass'n, and Robert M. Rhodes and Cathy M. Sellers, Steel, Hector and Davis, Tallahassee, amicus curiae, for FL Home Builders Ass'n.

David La Croix, Pennington, Wilkinson & Dunlap, P.A., and William J. Roberts, Roberts and Eagan, P.A., Tallahassee, amicus curiae, for FL Ass'n of Counties.

David J. Russ and Karen Brodeen, Asst. Gen. Counsels, Tallahassee, amicus curiae, for FL Dept. of Community Affairs.

Richard Grosso, Legal Director, Tallahassee, and C. Allen Watts, Cobb, Cole and Bell, Daytona Beach, amicus curiae, for 1000 Friends of FL.

Neal D. Bowen, County Atty., Kissimmee, amicus curiae, for Osceola County.

M. Stephen Turner and David K. Miller, Broad and Cassel, Tallahassee, amicus curiae, for Monticello Drug Co.

John J. Copelan, Jr., County Atty., and Barbara S. Monahan, Asst. County Atty. for Broward County, Fort Lauderdale, and Emeline Acton, County Atty. for Hillsborough County, Tampa, amici curiae, for Broward County, Hillsborough County and FL Ass'n of County Attys., Inc.

Thomas G. Pelham, Holland & Knight, Tallahassee, amicus curiae, pro se.

GRIMES, Justice.

We review Snyder v. Board of County Commissioners, 595 So.2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA1991), because of its conflict with Schauer v. City of Miami Beach, 112 So.2d 838 (Fla.1959); City of Jacksonville Beach v. Grubbs, 461 So.2d 160 (Fla. 1st DCA1984), review denied, 469 So.2d 749 (Fla.1985); and Palm Beach County v. Tinnerman, 517 So.2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA1987), review denied 528 So.2d 1183 (Fla.1988). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. Jack and Gail Snyder owned a one-half acre parcel of property on Merritt Island in the unincorporated area of Brevard County. The property is zoned GU (general use) which allows construction of a single-family residence. The Snyders filed an application to rezone their property to the RU-2-15 zoning classification which allows the construction of fifteen units per acre. The area is designated for residential use under the 1988 Brevard County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Twenty-nine zoning classifications are considered potentially consistent with this land use designation, including both the GU and the RU-2-15 classifications.

After the application for rezoning was filed, the Brevard County Planning and Zoning staff reviewed the application and completed the county's standard "rezoning review worksheet." The worksheet indicated that the proposed multifamily use of the Snyders' property was consistent with all aspects of the comprehensive plan except for the fact that it was located in the one-hundred-year flood plain in which a maximum of only two units per acre was permitted. For this reason, the staff recommended that the request be denied.

At the planning and zoning board meeting, the county planning and zoning director indicated that when the property was developed the land elevation would be raised to the point where the one-hundred-year-flood plain restriction would no longer be applicable. Thus, the director stated that the staff no longer opposed the application. The planning and zoning board voted to approve the Snyders' rezoning request.

When the matter came before the board of county commissioners, Snyder stated that he intended to build only five or six units on the property. However, a number of citizens spoke in opposition to the rezoning request. Their primary concern was the increase in traffic which would be caused by the development. Ultimately, the commission voted to deny the rezoning request without stating a reason for the denial.

The Snyders filed a petition for certiorari in the circuit court. Three circuit judges, sitting en banc, reviewed the petition and denied it by a two-to-one decision. The Snyders then filed a petition for certiorari in the Fifth District Court of Appeal.

The district court of appeal acknowledged that zoning decisions have traditionally been considered legislative in nature. Therefore, courts were required to uphold them if they could be justified as being "fairly debatable." Drawing heavily on Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners, 264 Or. 574, 507 P.2d 23 (1973), however, the court concluded that, unlike initial zoning enactments and comprehensive rezonings or rezonings affecting a large portion of the public, a rezoning action which entails the application of a general rule or policy to specific individuals, interests, or activities is quasi-judicial in nature. Under the latter circumstances, the court reasoned that a stricter standard of judicial review of the rezoning decision was required. The court went on to hold:

(4) Since a property owner's right to own and use his property is constitutionally protected, review of any governmental action denying or abridging that right is subject to close judicial scrutiny. Effective judicial review, constitutional due process and other essential requirements of law, all necessitate that the governmental agency (by whatever name it may be characterized) applying legislated land use restrictions to particular parcels of privately owned lands, must state reasons for action that denies the owner the use of his land and must make findings of fact and a record of its proceedings, sufficient for judicial review of: the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of fact made, the legal sufficiency of the findings of fact supporting the reasons given and the legal adequacy, under applicable law (i.e., under general comprehensive zoning ordinances, applicable state and case law and state and federal constitutional provisions) of the reasons given for the result of the action taken.

(5) The initial burden is upon the landowner to demonstrate that his petition or application for use of privately owned lands, (rezoning, special exception, conditional use permit, variance, site plan approval, etc.) complies with the reasonable procedural requirements of the ordinance and that the use sought is consistent with the applicable comprehensive zoning plan. Upon such a showing the landowner is presumptively entitled to use his property in the manner he seeks unless the opposing governmental agency asserts and proves by clear and convincing evidence that a specifically stated public necessity requires a specified, more restrictive, use. After such a showing the burden shifts to the landowner to assert and prove that such specified more restrictive land use constitutes a taking of his property for public use for which he is entitled to compensation under the taking provisions of the state or federal constitutions.

Snyder v. Board of County Commissioners, 595 So.2d at 81 (footnotes omitted).

Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the court found (1) that the Snyders' petition for rezoning was consistent with the comprehensive plan; (2) that there was no assertion or evidence that a more restrictive zoning classification was necessary to protect the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the general public; and (3) that the denial of the requested zoning classification without reasons supported by facts was, as a matter of law, arbitrary and unreasonable. The court granted the petition for certiorari.

Before this Court, the county contends that the standard of review for the county's denial of the Snyders' rezoning application is whether or not the decision was fairly debatable. The county further argues that the opinion below eliminates a local government's ability to operate in a legislative context and impairs its ability to respond to public comment. The county refers to Jennings v. Dade County, 589 So.2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA1991), review denied, 598 So.2d 75 (Fla.1992), for the proposition that if its rezoning decision is quasi-judicial, the commissioners will be prohibited from obtaining community input by way of ex parte communications from its citizens. In addition, the county suggests that the requirement to make findings in support of its rezoning decision will place an insurmountable burden on the zoning authorities. The county also asserts that the salutary purpose of the comprehensive plan to provide controlled growth will be thwarted by the court's ruling that the maximum use permitted by the plan must be approved once the rezoning application is determined to be consistent with it.

The Snyders respond that the decision below should be upheld in all of its major premises. They argue that the rationale for the early decisions that rezonings are legislative in nature has been changed by the enactment of the Growth Management Act. Thus, in order to ensure that local governments follow the principles enunciated in their comprehensive plans, it is necessary for the courts to exercise stricter scrutiny than would be provided under the fairly debatable rule. The Snyders contend that their rezoning application was consistent with the comprehensive plan. Because there are no findings of fact or reasons given for the denial by the board of county commissioners, there is no basis upon which the denial could be upheld....