Vill. of Palmetto Bay v. Palmer Trinity Private Sch., Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 July 2012
• Docket Number: No. 3D12–190.,3D12–190.
• Citation: 128 So.3d 19
• Parties: The VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, Florida, Petitioner, v. PALMER TRINITY PRIVATE SCHOOL, INC., Respondent.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

128 So.3d 19

The VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, Florida, Petitioner,

v.PALMER TRINITY PRIVATE SCHOOL, INC., Respondent.

No. 3D12–190.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Third District.

July 5, 2012.

White & Case, Raoul G. Cantero, Evan M. Goldenberg and Elizabeth Coppolecchia; Figueredo & Boutsis and Eve A. Boutsis, for petitioner; W. Tucker Gibbs, for Intervenor, Concerned Citizens of Old Cutler.

Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, Stanley B. Price, Eileen Ball Mehta and Eric Singer, for respondent.

Before WELLS, C.J., and LAGOA, J., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

WELLS, Chief Judge.

The Village of Palmetto Bay petitions for certiorari relief from an order of the circuit court appellate division granting a motion to enforce its mandate in Palmer Trinity Private School, Inc. v. Village of Palmetto Bay, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 342a (Fla. 11th Jud.Cir.Ct. Feb. 11, 2011).¹ Both Palmetto Bay and Palmer Trinity maintain, and we agree, that this order is subject to “first tier” certiorari review. See Ramirez v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 67 So.3d 1174, 1175–76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (confirming that a “first ruling on [a] question” by an appellate division of a circuit court is properly reviewed by the district court as a “first tier” appellate review); see also City of Indian Rocks Beach v. Tomalo, 834 So.2d 341, 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (treating a petition for second tier certiorari review of an order enforcing a circuit court appellate division mandate as an appeal).

To justify certiorari relief, a petition must demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of law resulting in a material injury that cannot be remedied on appeal. See Fortune Int'l Hospitality, LLC v. M Resort Residences Condo. Ass'n, 77 So.3d 741, 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (citing Martin–Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987)). A departure from the essential requirements of the law that will justify issuance of this extraordinary writ requires significantly more than a demonstration of legal error:

[T]he departure from the essential requirements of the law necessary for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error. A district court should exercise its discretion to grant certiorari review only when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885, 889 (Fla.2003) (citing Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So.2d 679, 682 (Fla.2000)).

As Chief Justice Boyd made clear in Jones v. State, 477 So.2d 566, 569 (Fla.1985) (Boyd, C.J., concurring specially):

The required “departure from the essential requirements of law” means something far beyond legal error. It means an inherent illegality or irregularity, an abuse of judicial power, an act of judicial tyranny perpetrated with disregard of procedural requirements, resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice. The writ of certiorari properly issues to correct essential illegality but not legal error.

See also Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 527–28 (Fla.1995) (observing that Chief Justice Boyd in Jones had “captured the essence of the standard” for determining whether a departure from the essential requirements of the law existed).

Under these parameters, the order of the circuit court appellate division granting Palmer Trinity's motion to enforce its prior mandate neither merits nor permits issuance of the writ sought. The circuit court appellate division did no more than order compliance with its now long final decision in Palmer Trinity Private School, Inc., 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. at 342a. There is no question that it is within the circuit court's authority to enforce its decisions and orders. See Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 328 So.2d 825, 827 (Fla.1975) (observing generally that a court may “take any steps or issue any appropriate writ necessary to give effect to its judgment”). The order itself does not then constitute a departure from the essential requirements of the law.

The compliance mandated by the order also does not constitute a departure from the essential requirements of the law. The order (or opinion) being enforced here struck portions of a zoning resolution addressing Palmer Trinity's special exception request to expand its school and to increase its student enrollment from 600 to 1150 students. The resolution being reviewed “approved” Palmer Trinity's special exception request for an increase in its student enrollment to 1150 but then limited that approval to permit only 900 students:

Section 4.Order.

A. The Council, pursuant to section 33–311(A)(7), and 33–151, et seq., of the Miami Dade County Code as applied by the Village, approves with conditions ... Applicants request[ ] for a special exception ... for ... [an increase in] number of students [to 1150] as to the plans entitled Palmer Trinity School Campus Master Plan....

B. The Village Council conditions ... the special exception as follows:

....

3. The request to increase the non-public school number of students to 1150 is denied. The condition to allow expansion to 900 students is granted.

(Resolution No. 2010–48 adopted May 17, 2010) (some emphasis added).

In a thorough and well reasoned opinion on first tier certiorari review, the appellate division of the circuit court struck the 900 student condition or “cap” leaving approval of the 1150 special exception request standing:

(PER CURIAM) This appeal arises out of the adoption of Zoning Resolution No. 2010–48 (the “Resolution”) by the Village of Palmetto Bay (the “Village”). Petitioner, Palmer Trinity Private School, Inc. (“Palmer Trinity”), seeks by way of certiorari review to quash and remove two provisions incorporated into Condition 4.4 of the Resolution, specifically: (1) the cap on the permissible number of students at the school at 900; and (2) the imposition of a thirty-year (30) prohibition on the filing of any applicationsfor development approvals on the school's 55–acre site. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 5, Florida Constitution, and Rules 9.030(c) and 9.100 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Palmer Trinity argues that the above provisions are unlawful and should be quashed and removed from the Resolution in that: (1) the cap on the number of students permitted at the school was arbitrary, not supported by competent substantial evidence, and departed from the essential requirements of law; and (2) the thirty-year prohibition on future development applications violated Palmer Trinity's due process rights because it constituted a de facto moratorium for which neither notice nor opportunity to be heard was given, that the Village departed from the essential requirements of law in approving the prohibition, and that the Village failed to support the thirty-year prohibition with substantial competent evidence.

The Village disagrees and seeks to dismiss Palmer Trinity's Petition. For the reasons set forth below, we QUASH the two provisions contained in the Resolution, as set forth above, adopted by the Village and REMAND to the Village with instructions to conduct further proceedings on this matter in accordance with this decision.

Procedural and Factual Background

Palmer Trinity has owned and operated a private school on 22.5 acres of land [now] located within the Village (“Parcel A”) for almost five decades. In 1988, Palmer Trinity applied for and obtained approval of a modification of its site plan for the purpose of increasing its enrollment to 600 students. In 2003, Palmer Trinity purchased an additional 32.5 acres also located within the Village (“Parcel B”) that was zoned half Agricultural (“AU”) and half Estate Single Family per Five Acres (“EU–2”). Parcel B had an Estate Density Residential (“EDR”) future land use designation, allowing for less than 2.5 dwelling units per acre. In 2006, Palmer Trinity filed an application (the “Application”) under the Miami–Dade County Code to rezone Parcel B to Estate Modified Single Family allowing for one home per 15,000 square feet (“EU–M”). As part of the Application, Palmer Trinity also sought a special exception to increase the student enrollment from 600 to 1400 and certain variances concerning further development on both Parcel A and B. As a result of the incorporation of the Village as a municipality, the Application was transferred from the County to the Village.

In 2008, the Village held a hearing on the Application. Consideration of the rezoning request was bifurcated from the other requests in the Application. At the 2008 hearing, the Village adopted Ordinance 08–06 denying the requested rezoning. Palmer Trinity appealed this denial in a petition for certiorari review to the Circuit Court, acting in its appellate capacity, which upheld, without opinion, the Village's decision. Palmer Trinity then took an appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal which reversed the Circuit Court, thereby overturning the Village's denial of the rezoning request. See Palmer Trinity Private School, Inc. v. Village of Palmetto Bay, 31 So.3d 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“Palmer I ”).

After the Third District issued the decision in Palmer I, Palmer Trinity revised its plans, eliminating some of the previously requested non-use variances and reducing its requested student enrollment from 1400 to 1150. Palmer Trinity also voluntarily offered to expand its student population from 600 to 1150 in gradual increments over a fifteen year period. In addition, the proposed site plan was modified to reflect the reduced student enrollment request of 1150, the proposed new development on Parcel B was redesigned and relocated toward the center, setbacks were increased and additional landscaping was added.

On April 28, 2010, the Village conducted a public hearing on the first reading of the rezoning component of the Application. On May 4, 2010, the Village conducted a public hearing on second reading of the rezoning request...