Neumont v. State
| Decision Date | 27 September 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. SC06-1204.,SC06-1204. |
| Citation | 967 So.2d 822 |
| Parties | Elizabeth J. NEUMONT, et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Monroe County, Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Eric Grant, Sacramento, CA, Harold E. Wolfe, Jr., and William H. Pincus, West Palm Beach, FL, and James H. Hicks of Hicks, Brams and Motto, West Palm Beach, FL, for Appellants.
Edwin A. Scales, III of GrayRobinson, P.A., Key West, FL, Monterey Campbell, III of GrayRobinson, P.A., Lakeland, FL, and Robert B. Shillinger, Jr., Chief Assistant County Attorney, Office of County Attorney Monroe County, Florida, Key West, FL, for Appellee.
Harry Morrison, Jr., General Counsel and Rebecca A. O'Hara, Deputy General Counsel, Florida League of Cities, Inc., Tallahassee, FL, and Virginia Saunders Delegal, General Counsel, Florida Association of Counties, Inc., Tallahassee, FL, as Amicus Curiae.
The appellants seek to invalidate a Monroe County ordinance limiting the use of homes as vacation rentals. We must decide what kind of changes to a proposed ordinance during the enactment process are "substantial or material" so that the process must start from scratch. Reviewing the case on appeal from a summary judgment, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit certified a question to us. We have exercised our discretionary jurisdiction to answer it. See art. V, § 3(b)(6), Fla. Const. For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the changes to an ordinance during the enactment process are only "substantial or material" if they change the ordinance's general purpose.
The Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County enacted Ordinance No. 004-1997 on February 3, 1997. The ordinance restricts the use of residential properties throughout Monroe County as vacation rentals, defined as rentals of fewer than twenty-nine days. The ordinance's purpose is to prevent the diversion of scarce residential housing to vacation rental use. Violations result in criminal penalties.
The County first advertised the ordinance on November 7-9, 1996. The advertisement included the ordinance's title: "Modifying the existing prohibition on tourist housing including vacation rentals in all land use districts." The advertisement stated that a first public hearing was scheduled for December 10. At the time, a draft of the ordinance, dated September 17, 1996, was available to the public.
At the December 10 hearing, the board of county commissioners considered a new draft dated that same day that was distributed to the board during the hearing. It differed from the advertised draft in several respects:
(a) the original draft proposed a ban on vacation rentals throughout the County, while the new draft took a district-by-district approach;
(b) the original draft allowed an option to create sub-districts where vacation rentals would be permitted, while the new draft eliminated that option; and
(c) the new draft included a more-complex licensing system for vacation rentals than did the original draft.
Based on the input received at the hearing, the board ordered additional changes.
On January 11, 12, and 16, 1997, the County advertised a notice of a second public hearing. This advertisement again stated the title of the ordinance, which was the same as the original title except in one respect. It stated, "Modifying the existing prohibition on tourist housing including vacation rentals in all residential districts" (instead of "land use districts").
The second hearing was held on February 3. At that hearing, the board considered a new draft of the ordinance dated January 29, which had been distributed to the public on January 31. At the second hearing, the board also considered an "Errata Sheet," which included additional changes to the proposed ordinance.
After four and half hours of public debate, the board approved the January 29 draft with the proposed changes in the errata sheet. There were three main differences between the December 10 draft and the final version:
(a) The December 10 draft permitted vacation rentals in sparsely settled residential districts while the final ordinance prohibited them;
(b) The December 10 draft addressed vacation rentals in commercial fishing districts, while the final ordinance did not; and
(c) The December 10 draft did not refer to the Commercial Fishing Residential District, while the final ordinance prohibited vacation rentals in that district.
The Plaintiffs, Elizabeth Neumont, et al., own property in Monroe County, which they used for short-term vacation rentals. They sued Monroe County in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, challenging the ordinance based on state and federal law. The various claims sought declaratory relief as to the ordinance's validity, injunctive relief to halt its effect, and compensation for damages resulting from its enforcement. Count X asserted that the ordinance was void because the changes made during the enactment process were "substantial or material," thereby requiring the process to begin anew.
The district court certified a class of plaintiffs, see Neumont v. Monroe County, Fla., 198 F.R.D. 554 (S.D.Fla.2000); and later dismissed several counts. See Neumont v. Monroe County, Fla., 242 F.Supp.2d 1265 (S.D.Fla.2002). After discovery and several rounds of summary judgment motions, the court upheld the ordinance, granted summary judgment for Monroe County on Count X, and dismissed the remaining claims. Neumont v. Monroe County, Fla., 280 F.Supp.2d 1367 (S.D.Fla.2003). Plaintiffs appealed.
The Eleventh Circuit noted that federal courts "address questions of federal constitutional law only as a last resort." Neumont v. Florida, 451 F.3d 1284, 1285 (11th Cir.2006) (quoting Save Our Dunes v. Ala. Dep't. of Envtl. Mgmt., 834 F.2d 984, 989 (11th Cir.1987)). The court further noted that a state law determination on Count X "may remove the need to decide certain questions of federal constitutional law." Id. Therefore, the circuit court certified to us the following question:
Whether, for purposes of Florida Statutes section 125.66(4)(b), a "substantial or material change" in a proposed ordinance during the enactment process (that is, the kind of change that would require a county to start the process over) is confined to a change in the "original general purpose" of the proposed ordinance, or whether a substantial or material change includes (1) a change to the "actual list of permitted, conditional, or prohibited uses within a zoning category," or (2) a change necessary to secure legislative passage of the ordinance?
Id. at 1287. The question is one of first impression in Florida.
The Plaintiffs argue that Monroe County modified the proposed ordinance several times during the process, and that because the changes were "substantial or material," the enactment process should have been restarted. They argue that after every change to the ordinance, the proposal should have been readvertised and new public hearings held. Monroe County concedes that a substantial or material change to a proposed ordinance would require such action. That requirement derives from a 1982 Florida Attorney General opinion concluding that "if any substantial or material changes or amendments are made during the adoption process, the enactment process . . . must start anew, with full compliance with the reading and notice requirements contained [in the statute]." See Op. Att'y. Gen. Fla. 82-93 (1982). This conclusion is consistent with that of other authorities. See 5 Eugene McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations, § 16.88 (3d ed. 1996) (). The County argues, however, that the changes to this ordinance were not substantial or material because they did not alter the ordinance's general purpose. Therefore, the only issue we must consider is what kind of changes to a proposed ordinance are "substantial and material" so as to require the process to be restarted.
The parties propose three possible definitions of "substantial or material change." These are: a change to the actual list of permitted, conditional, or prohibited uses within a zoning category; a change necessary to secure legislative passage; and a change in the original purpose of the ordinance. For the reasons explained below, we hold that the last definition — a change in the ordinance's original purpose — is most consistent with the statutory requirements for enacting an ordinance and best furthers the public's interest in efficient and responsive local government.
In the following sections we (A) review the Monroe County zoning system in general and Ordinance No. 004-1997 in particular; (B) analyze the requirements for enacting ordinances listed in section 125.66, Florida Statutes (1995); (C) adopt a definition of "substantial or material change"; and finally (D) apply that definition to this case. We conclude that the general purpose approach is the proper standard.
We first review the Monroe County zoning system. The Monroe County Code (MCC) defines twenty-three categories of land use districts.1 Each category serves a different purpose. For example, an Urban Commercial District is "intended to serve retail sales and service, professional services and resort activities." Monroe County, Fla., Code § 9.5-203 (2007). An Urban Residential District is intended "to provide areas for high-density residential uses." Id. § 9.5-204. Each district also has permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses. For example, in the Urban Commercial District, "recreational uses [are] limited to: bowling alleys, tennis . . . courts . . . [and] swimming pools." Id. § 9.5-232(a). In the Commercial Fishing Village Districts, commercial fishing is a permitted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bahmani v. City of L.A.
-
Neumont v. State Of Fla.
...to an ordinance during the enactment are only “substantial or material” if they change the ordinance's general purpose. Neumont v. Florida, 967 So.2d 822, 825 (Fla.2007). The Florida Supreme Court applied this definition to Monroe County's conduct by comparing the notice provided to the pub......
-
Chapter § 6.01 THE IMPACT OF CLASS ACTIONS
...nature preserve; certification granted to sub-class of non-residents who had paid the fee).[173] See, e.g., Neumont v. State of Florida, 967 So. 2d 822 (Fla. Sup. 2007) ("The ordinance restricts the use of residential properties throughout Monroe County as vacation rentals, defined as renta......