1982.10.20_BAA_Minutes_Regularf TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
QUARTERLY MEETING - MINUTES
Tuesday, October 20, 1992 ____ 9:30 A.M.
i~
Chairman Harold B. Cohen called the Quarterly Meeting to order in Com-
mission Chambers at 9:30 A.M.
Deputy Town Clerk Doris Trinley called the roll. Present were the
Chairman, Vice Chairman David Augenstein and Members Jane Rayner,
Robert F. Selby, Benjamin Cohen and Richard C. Seguso. Member Daniel
C. Stump was absent.
Building Official Lee Leffingwell was also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The following sets of Minutes were unanimously approved:
July 21 Quarterly (Mr. Benjamin Cohen/Mrs. Rayner)
August 4 Workshop (Mr. Augenstein/Mr. Selby)
August 21 Public Hearing (Mr. Augenstein/Mrs. Rayner)
August 21 Workshop (Mr. Augenstein/Mrs. Rayner)
September 8 Public Hearing (Mr. Augenstein/Mr. Selby)
Before moving on to the next agenda item, Chairman Cohen congratulated
Mrs. Rayner, noting her recent reappointment to the Board.
DISCUSSION
Chairman Cohen referred to a recent case wherein the petitioner had
tried to talk with him about it on a one-to-one basis and the Chairman
had refused, being of the opinion that petitioners should not have
access to individual Board members regarding their cases. However,
when he told Town Attorney Sliney about the attempt to talk with him
privately, he was advised this would the Chairman's option, but it was
not out of order; still the Chairman declined.
However, Chairman Cohen advised that since that time the Town Attorney
had looked into the matter and subsequently wrote a letter on September
10 to the Town Manager regarding Jennings vs. Dade County. It was
stated therein that ex parte communications from a petitioner to a
Board Member should be avoided, particularly if the communication is in
the nature of lobbying rather than presenting facts to the Board
Member. Chairman Cohen then read the letter into the record. (Copy
attached to and made part of these Minutes.)
s
• Board of Adjustment
Quarterly Meeting - Minutes
October 20, 1992 Page 2 of 2
It was agreed not only that each sitting member get an individual copy
of the letter, but also that a copy be included with the Board's
Information Booklet so future members could be so informed.
Building Official Leffingwell answered questions about Ocean Place
(Lots 20-28E), advising that the Sales Office would be moved closer to
the guard's gate because the lot it now occupied had been sold; also,
the LeSanctuaire project (lot 90E) needed to excavate the sand in the
dune area below the crown of the road in order to put pilings in; it is
being stored on two different sites and will be replaced when. pilings
are in place.
It was the Consensus that if no petitions for variance are received in
the interim, the next Quarterly Meeting will be held on Tuesday,
January 26, 1993 at 9:30 A.M.
There being no further business to come before the Board at this time,
the meeting was adjourned upon MOTION by Mr. Augunstein/Mr. Benjamin
Cohen at 9:55 A.M.
dmt
APPROVE : .~ ~"~-c~rc-~ ~- TER I'vl L D ~n p L ~_ ~ v -
Haro d B. Co en, Chairman Davi Augens ein, Vice airman
ane Ra ner
y Robert F. Se ~6y
T ~ B s ~~ r - / C'
BenJam~n Co en is ar eguso
ATTEST: <'~~
DATE : ! 02 (~ 3
i
''
_r
~ HODGSON, RUSS, ANDREWS, WOODS & GOODYEAR
(A PAR TNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIA TIONS) j
ATTORNEYS AT LAW i
1800 ONE M E T PLAZA
• 2000 GLADES ROAD, SUIYE 400 1401 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
BUFFALO, NY 14203
BGCA RATGN, FLORIDA 33431 WASHINGTON, DC 20006
{716) 856-4000 (202) 347-9696
MET FAX (716) 849-0349 FAX (202) 737-1529
GUARANTY FAX (716) 652-5165 BOCA RATON(407) 394-0500
PALM BEACH (407) 736-2177
THREE CITY SOUARE BROWARO (305) 764-2440 3 ROBERT SPECK PARKWAY, SUITE 660
ALBANY, 13Y 12207 FAx (305) 427-4303 MISSISSAUGA, ANT. CANADA Z42 206
(516) 465 -2333 PRACTICE RESTRICTED TO U.3. LAW)
FAX (516) 465-1567 (416) 566-5061
FAX (416) 566-2049
TxoMAS E. SLINEY
PARTNER
September 10, 1992
Mary Ann Mariano, Town Manager
3614 South Ocean Blvd.,
Highland Beach, Florida 33487
Dear Mary Ann:
RE: JENNINGS v DARE CODNTY
I am enclosing a copy of a recent decision concerning ex
parte communications from Petitioners to Governmental Agencies with
Board Members. This case indicated that ex parte communications
from a Petitioner to Board Member should be avoided. particularly if
the communications is in the nature of lobbying rather than
presenting facts to the Board Member.
I know in the past when questions of this nature have
come up Board Members have been reluctant to talk one on one with
Petitioners or their Representatives and this case would
substantiate that feeling.
I would appreciate it if you would disseminate a copy of
this case, and a copy of my letter, to the Chairman of the various
Boards in Town.
Very,~ruly yours.
V~
~'
Th mas E. Sliney
TES/t
Enclosure
~e : ~ ~
~/ V(/\ J
~~-
~.1
i r
NUG-25-1992 14 17 FROM CITY OF BOCA RATON TO
.~ ~
40~ a~ °~~
913054274303 P.02
• CITY MALL • 20 t Y1165T PALMETTO PARK ROAO • BOLA RATON, FLORIDA 33432.3795 • PHONE {~io7) 393.7700
' SUNCOM: {407) 922.770p
August 5, i992
CITY AT'i'ORNLY MEMORANDUM NO. 92-7$
•
TO: Mayor and City Cvuncil
FROM: Frank S . Yiart'o1vr~
City Attorney ~/L~
SUBJECT: Ex PatLt.e Communications with CouncilmcmbCra
't'his memo ig to advise you regarding complying with the rec nt
court decision of Jennings vs. Dade County. This decision has
isSUed by the Tliirci District Court of Appeal late 1a~t ye
Recently the Floridm Supreme Court hoe declined to review '4~h4
decision, therefore making the holding of the case applicable~Iin
all the Districts in Lhe 9tato o~ Florida. I
A copy 'of the case and a memoXelnduta furnished to several of ~t1e
City boards tca which the cnac may epply is attached. PlE ee
read the attached memorandum as it contains a fuller explanat.on
of the case and suggestions to avoid the pitfalls which iGay
arise as a result of iLs applications. f
While the language cf the case is very broad.and all encomp
ing, it appears that land use decisions, particularly_condit
al use applications is the area in which the case wild. have
moat application to City Council. I know that indivi
members Ot the City Council axe irequentiy contact8d.by
ponentB or opponents of a spQCific conditional use.
contacts Fall within tt~.e activity which the Jennings
t~ppears to proscribe. 1 suggest that the iztdividue~. caurl
members consider following the suggestions eontained..in
attached memorandum when such contacts are made. Appehls
the Community Appearance Board, and R:he P~.anning and ~o
Hoard, sign code vAria~nces and the disposition of formal
protests are instances to which this case may apply.
1
1•-
-+• AN EQUAL OtroRTUNt7Y t:MPLQYER -~
~-+uu-~5-1992 14:18
.. ,
•
FROM CITY OF BOCK R(aTON
Mayor and City Council
Page Z
TO 9130542743e3 P.03
August 5, 199
~Thxle we have always taken the position that resolutions qr L-
ing conditional use applications which involve the approval ~ a
site plan are ~.egislative (not quasi-judicial) decisions, the
trend of the case law that anch dec#,sivns are not legislat,~ve
but are quasi-judicial (thus, subject to the ~en~ casejlis
cleax.
It is important to note that, in order to qet the relief
the case appears to authorise, it is necessary for an aggri
party to qo to court, prove the camu-unication and have a j
enter an order requiring a new hearing; however, it'is pru
to consider that virtually every quasi-judicial action of
City Council may have that potential, especially ~in tod
litigious climate.
If you have any questiaas ox comments, please feel free
co»tact me. 1
FSH:gk
enclosures
:nt
:he
r' s
to
•
r+UV-~S-Lyy~ 14: 113 FROM ~ f rY OF BOCK RNTON CO 913F3542''4.303
~~/ ~~lfLiW !~~
CiT'Y HALL • 201 WEST PALMETCO PARK 110AD • IIQCA 1~ATOP1, r'Ly1C7t)A :l~a32.9 79`3 • PH0(VE t~i07> 393.7700
fiUNCOM; (x071922-7700
August 5, 1997 .
CITY AT'rc~ ML'MOR1'-NDtTLK NO. 92-80
Tp: Code Enforcement Board
Civil Service Board
zoning Soard of Adju3tment
Builders' Board of Adjus ent
FROM: Christine P. Tatum
Assistant City Attor y
SU8.7~CT: Ex Parts Co~snnun5.cations with Hoard Membero
Thf.a memo is to advise you of the regent court decision of
Jennincts vs. Dade County. This decision etas issued by tho Th~rd
i~iatric:t Court of Appeal late last year. Rwcoutly the Flor~.da
Supreme Court has decliasd to review the decision.
Bach of yuu aeacvea on Hoards xhich perfos~a quasi.- judic~a3
functions for the City of Boca Raton, A 8oazd acts qua~i-
• judicially when it adjudicates private rights of ~particu~ar
persons atL•er a hearing, which compiles with due procar~a e-
quirements and makes finding of fasts and conaluaiona of Iaw+on
the dzSputed issues.
The Jennings case involves "ex parse" communications. A ca -
unication is considered "ex parts" when it occurs .vut of he
presence of all parl.ies who will make a specific deciaien or ho
are entitled to be notified of the 3~earinq at which the decis~~ on
will be made. ,
The Court in the Jennin s case held that when a Board memwber
sitting in $ quasi-ju icial function xocgives an ox pa,~tQ
contact, a presumption ar3.sss that the contact caused the
decisionmaker receiving the communication to prejudge the mat,~er
and, unless the presumption of pzejudice is rebuttied, he
complaining party may be entitled to a new and actaplete hears g.
The JenninQS case leaves many questions unanswered, which w~~.ll
undoubtedly be the subject of litigation in the futu~ce. We w~~.l~.
keep you apprised o2 any turthez~ developments in this area, }gut
in the interim, offer the folloaring suggestions for dealing v~t~th
ex parts communications an quasi-judicial matters:
"~~ AN tsQUAI.OPPO/t7tlPIiTY EMPLOYER
P.04
r-iuu-~:,-1'~`~~ 14 ~ L ~J FROM l ` ~ r (JF COCA RA f~N
Code Enforcement Soard
• Civil Service Board
Zoning Beard of Adjustment
Builders; Board of Adjustment
ra 91~~75:12'~'a.~J3 P 05
August 5, 19g2
Page 3
i. Any written ex game catiauunication relating to mattkrs
wh~.ch will come befare your Soard should immediately be tra~s--
a+itted to the Clerk of the Board for inclusion 3n the office a1
record of the case.
Z. If it beco~tes apparent during a telephone call or o~rai
communicatinn thnt t$e conversation relates to a quasi-judicial
matter which will come before your Soard, pleaae advise ~he
person communicating with you that such a conve=sation is
inappropriate and could jeopetrdixe the vaZidi.ty of the deciaion
regarding the matter to come before your Board. You sha~ld
advise the person to submit the substance of the communicat an
to the Board in writing. If the communication continues, af~er
its conclusion, you Should consider creating a written docum nt
reflecting that the communication occurred and relating the
substance of the communication. This document should be for-
warded to the clerk of the appropriate board far inclusion in
the official retard of the pxoceediaq which was the: subject o~
the communication.
I have forwarded at copy of the opinion in the Jennings case to
the attorney who represents your Board, so that they xill'EEbe
grepared to answez any farther inquiries you might have regatrd-
ing thia matter.
CPT:gk
NUG-25-19'~~ 1~i:20 FROM C`TY OF BOCA RRTON TO ~~ 913054274303 P.06
~. If the party haii.~y
~g a re~pvttae ta:i~e
~.
~ snd could raise the~anb:
~Op~a1•af6er flan[ judgnte~l,
j~ gleam. '1R,o rer'j3
~i`the legislature nought,
~ ' . ti 468.?2 would be••s1.~
~~iA pr«siRalY tbe'1drid~
ti~'ctvt-ich ~rtsorari is°~~~'
i(ossh the ~ioi cou~'a ~~
i~ proceedings consisteizt
::~.1..
~.,
~.~... .. Sd .
.'Fi. : yt.:;
with opinion.• •.
orari on the autho.
u Savage. See a
` ~ I•redam. Ca"
:Zd 898 4Fla: 4th ~
here is ao reason
ipreme court wan
9.72. Florida State
assume that the stet
~ in the taw. ~ ai
petition is untimely f
f the prntectSve orb
F•t~
motion !or rehesi
:'readStioa of the '
D the time for asst
'OR RBHEARINQ = '
aieat$' motion for~t~;
Upon consideral5on' bJ.
e~ adopt the ptsnst
f der~i~. to all o~i;
it a10tl0aS for reheating
~~ 'We therefore quag2s
!n3era and resnaud °for,
!ent Willi the paual cilia;
~, sad DOWNEY,•~:
'JF:1'iNING$ r. DADB ~COUNx`Y '
Chaa9! ao.z; f~i9 ~7aJ1P/.IDMt 1191)
~:.: ~i'ONE, 1, dissentli with oginioa, arlth
-rjghSch LL"x'TS, ELltSIf,'Y and GVDTi'»Yt, 11tIlWn a. JZM`IIMGS,
JJ., canoe-. r,
S'PONE, Jndgt:, diaaentiag. •
•*:.-
..,, I dissent for the reasons eapres4ed in my
.; t to the initial panel detision in this
APP~-
r.
o jttt 1{OMKRStf~tl
Joaepls ~iN, Petitioner,
T.
Julie SANDLER surd Iris Saddler,
R,eapondenta.
No. 91-1684.
pistrict Court of Appeal of Florfda,
Furth Diatciot.
Den 2?, 1991.
• Petition fos tvris; of oartiet~ari bo Flo (Sr-
~t Court for Hro~rard t'bnnty; Lawreaev
% Korda, Judge.
IiT. 119aloaey of Yatteraon, A9~aloney dt
Gardiner. Fort I.anderdale, for petitioner.
Wayne Kaptan of Haplaa & Ga7lord,
P.A., l3oCat Raton, for respondents.
PER C[lR1A;SI.
We grant the petition far certiorari and
• quash the trial court's order of Hay 2d.
1991. Sac ZisRa u Sandier, 58.9 Sold
18.8+t (Fla. 4th DGA 1381y tcn motion for
reheating en banc?.
GLICK5ITIl~T, C.~., and LEiZS and
GUN'l'HER, JJ., eoncar.
a ~sn~mntisrsttn
• Filitels tSobc ?bo osisimt opiaian ~ 6,
199t is tvltltdrawa frost lavttnd witta3e pubIfcrti
DADifi COUNTY at+d i
Schstsmun, Appolct
Nos. 88-2324, 88•-131
District Court of Appeal of
Thad Distrfct
1~3?
Aug. 8, 2891.'
an Rehearing Granted Dec. , 199E
i.2xtdc~wner petitioned far 't of oer-
tiotarf to ehalknge trial wart er which
dlamissed laAdowne~'s count Bing du+s
process violation as result of ex arts com-
manii:ation between adjacent t downer's
lobbyist and county conuaissi ss before
vote agpro~viag ass variance f sedjaCeut
latidowaer, which .gavA to Lnda~-nar leavQ
la ommd complaint only agsit~t oounty,
and wMeh denied motion Lo dis~itiss count
aIleging nnisanoe • as result of permitted
tree. Thu Thatrict Qcmrt of A Nesbitt.
J, held on releearizig that; cI} downti's
timely petition activated co a-hw cez-
tiora:'3 9u:isdfction; (~ lobbyia$ ex parts
pomrnp~tioa could violate die prooeas
despiEa landowner's actaal and ts~tractive
knowledge of ex parts cammnnidation; sad
(3~ landows>a~'s prima lade ease bf ex paste
arata~Ctts would give rise to prey ptron of
prejadice and shift harden ~ ~ceat land-
or-azer sad eonnty to rebut i gresi:t+np-
tion.
Quashed and ,re:nar~ded.
Fergaaon, J.,~ filed concurr~g opinion
upon gxaat of rehearing. 11
R
1. Zoning sad PIaariicig ea74 ,
Lundotgrtet'R timely pPiiiic~t actiratsd
cammoiraaw ceriSorari juriadiq~ion to se-
view trial court' order wbieli diamiased
coast alltst~cng ~ P~ eo ~ n be-
tween adjacent ]andowaer'a ; byiat and
county eommissiotsere prior to , sal of
tiA~ txesusr It is supeesecir~l ~ t ~ opinion !Ht
trhearirtt.
l~
AUG-25-1992 14~ 21 FROM C" TY OF BOCA RA TON
TO 9130542'74303 P.0'7
Y$~$ Fla. 589 8OlITHEIi2Q REPORTER, 2d SERIES
variance, which gave to landowner loavo to
amend complaint only agautst wnuty sad
to Lraasfer matter to appellate division of
circuit wort„ and which denied rnottoa W
ditrmiss count alleging that use permliied
by vasiance coaatituted nuisance; order
was dopart.~v Frans saseadal raq~+ins~rcrsrts
of law and squired plaintiff landowner to
litigate putative claim i>i proceeding that
Could noL afford relief raquastad_
Y. Zoning;snd Planning a~741
Na i`rtipedimeat extatad to oxercise of
jurisdiction over defendant iandowaei, is
that common-Iaw certiorari jurisdictaan was
aotivntcd by plaintifl landowner's timely
petition. .
3. Coaetltutlonul Law w+3i8(1)
Quality of due process required in qua-
si-judicial hearing is not same as that to
which party to fait judicial hearing is enti-
tled. West's F.S.A. Coast Ark, 1, § 9;
U.S.C.A. Const.Aatenda. 5. t4.
4, Adrr-ls>lstraiive Law and Proeedaro
e++311, 313
Quasi-judicial proceedings are not cort-
troIlad by strict rules of evidence and pro•
endure.
5. ConatlLutlonaI Law ~Sl$(1) .
Quasi judicial dociaion based upon
rocord is nol conclusive if minimal stan-
dards of due process are denied: West's
F.S.A. Coast. Ark I, $ 9; il.S.C.A. Court
Acaends. 5, I4. .
6. Con+ttitutio:-at lsw a31$Cll
quasi-judicial hearing generally meets.
basic due process requiremente'if parties
are provided notlao of lteariag and vpportu-
Wily to be hesrd. West's F.S.A. Causer Art.
1, ¢ 9; U.S.GA. Coast,Amends. 5, I4.
dross-exaruioe witnesses, and be inforated
of all ta~ets upon whirls commisaioa ac4.
8. CoasLltrrtlonal Law 6y878.2(2)
Ex parts oommunicatiott betvreeu iaad-
ownes's bbbpiaL and county cornmiarioaorr~:
before they mooted to approve toe variance.
for landowner mould violate due process
despite adjacent badowaet's actual or con- •
atructivg iarowledge of comsauniq~lloa and'
1aiIure to tttbgoana bbbyisk Weat'9'
FS.A. Coast Ark 1, § 9; U.S.CA. Const.
Amends. b, 14.
9. Admlalstmtive Law sad Procedure
X324
Ex parts eommanicatioas s-ra iahereut-
ly improper and are umthema to quasi•
judicial proceedings; quasi jadicisl oi£tccr
should avoid all such contacts where lheJ
era ideati!(abte.
14. Adruln'ratrntive Lar. sad Precedtsre .
~3i4
Occarrence of ex psrlt cnsnmurircalion
in quasi-jndiast procecditt¢ dots not man•
dste autouuatta reversal. '
I1. Adallniatrrttive Law and Procedure '
x,114 ,
Allegtctian of prajudtx resuILing icotn • .
ex parts oantaota wt-th decisio~r makers la
quasi judicial proceeding ststtea ease o{ ae-
tian.
12. Adaalaiatrative Law and Procedure
X314
1lpen aggrievod party'o proof that «
parts coaLact oecurr+ed with decision maY• ,
ors in quasijpdicial proceeding, its eftecL is
presumed to be prejrrdieiat, ualcr~ dnfea-
dart proves contrary by coaipeteace ovl-
den¢~ Welt's F.S.A. § 94.304.
7. Zoning sad Ylanrring aa359
Ia quasi-judicial ranin$ proceeding,
portico must be able w present evidence,
l3. Constitutional Low ~+3I8U) '
In determmiag prejudicial effect of ex .
parts eArnmunicatioa allegedly violati:sg
due process is quasi
sl wart should cons:
ria: what was grout
nlcation; whether cc
sated agency's ultir
gamy making lmprc
from sgency's ultin
contents of common
to opposing psrstiea;
of agency's deciaioc
proceedings would
'4Vast'a F.S.A. Coast
CoastAmencia. 5, 1~
24- Counties e=58
AlIegaticn of pt
nsaaiation in quasi
fore county commi:
maiatsia original eq
to establish its clot
15. Counties X58
Once claim of p
muaication is quasi
• fore county commis
tcndltsg Party will
sbsence of prejtKlic
16. Zoning arts Pt:
irsrrdvwaer's p
intact be-
apw er's lobbyist am
: before tlsty rated t
for adjacent laadoY
Presumption o£ pre
1{ g 4o.soe.
t 17. ZOnIAg aAd ~`~:
• Landowuer'a g
~ parts contacts be
owner's lobbyist an:
tl,ep voted to app
adjacent Iandowaer
county and adjaces
presumption of pre
¢ 90.309.
18. Zoning and Pl:
To rebut Ares
fraur ez parts eo
7udtce IIsrkduit Rani
AUG-25-1992 14:22 FROM C~rY pF BOCR RATON TO 913054274303 P.08
JErrrltncs r, ia,wt, caurl'»r ~. 1339
es, and 1x Informed ga~ssf sae wi
due process in quasi-judicial proceeding. tri- (t~-.+-rr•stn.w toed
Owners lobbyist aad county comtalssloaers ;
ich commission acts. al court should consider the following trite- before they voted to approve• use rariance
~ ria: what was gravity of ex parts comma- for istndowner,landovvncr~ould rely on any
. a~Y78.2t23 nication; whether contacts may have influ- tsvorattle evWeace presented during adja-
ication between land- enced agency's ultimate decision; whether cent landowner's cast-inchicf, including
ounty commissioners party making improper contacts botaatited that adduced during cross-examination of
xpprovn use variance [rem agency's ultimate decision: whether adjacent tandowncr's witnesses. West's
vtotatq duo process contents of communications wore unknown F.S.A. § 90.304.
wner'r actual or con- to opposing particsr and whether vacating
c comrnunlcation and of agency's decision on remand fur new
lobbyist, West's proceedings would serve useful purpose.
¢ 9; U.S.C.A. Coast. West's F.S.A. Count Ast. I, § 9; U.S.C.A.
t;,onst.Arnends. S, 1;. John G. F'ltstclter, South Miami, fer appel•
~~
aw and procedure
tit~ltionS art: jnliarent
anathema to quotsi•
qut~s--judicial offiter
contact9 where they
and Procedure
IA. Counties aa58
Allegation of prcf udiclal ex parts com-
munication in quasi judicial proceeding ba-
foro county Commiation enables party LO
maintain orlt;lnal equitable cause of action
to establish its claim.
15. Counties ~-~8
Onto claim of prejudicial ex parts ootn•
murricatioa in quasi judicial proctading be-
fore county cotomission is established, oc
fending party wit- be required m prove
absence of prejudice.
Robert D. Kerner and Rdand C. Robi
son, Miami, Itnhert A. (iinsbur¢. Count
Atty.. and Eiteon Ball Mehra and Craig
Colley, Asst County Attys.. for nppcliecs
Joel Y. Lamer. Miami. for the 3ier
Club as Aroicus Curiae.
Before BaItKDULL,' NESI3ITt' end
F`ERGUSON, JJ, j
parts communication
:eding does not matt.
;al.
.nw and Procedure
judice resulting from
Jt decision makers in
:ng stitcs cause of ac•
Law and Procedure
party's proof that ox
d with decision tnak-
rocecding, its effect fs
udicial, unless defen-
~ t1y competence evi-
.. ¢ 90.304.
,nw X318(1)
rrejudicia) offxt of ex
n allegeaelly violating
•
16. 7.ontng and PInnning Qa678
Landowner's prittra Cade case of ax
parts contact between adjacent Iartti-
owner's lobbyist and county commissioners
before they voted to approve use vat7aacc
for adjacent landowttcr would give riae~to
presumption of prejudice. West's F.S.A.
§ 90.304.
17. Zoning and Planning X679
• Landowner's prima facie case of ex
pacts rAntacts between adjacrmt land-
owner's lobbyist and commissiontrs before
they rotad to approve use rariarree for
adjsctrnt ]t-ndownar would shift burtl~n m
county and adjacent landowner to rebut
presumption of prejudice. West's F.S.A.
~ 90.30.
18. Zoning and Planning e~679
To rebut presumption of prejudice
fmm ex parts contacts betwcea land•
• Judge Dartduil parlieipnted in decision only.
ON R>;E~iEARiNG GRANTED
Z~li~Hi'I'I: Judge.
The issue we confront is the effect of n
ex parts communication span a decisil~n
emanating from a quasijudicial protxedit;g
of the Dade County Commission. We hc~d
that upon proof that aquasi-juditxat ofti¢{er
received an tcc p:rrt~: contacR a presurnpti
arises, pursuant to sectioa 90.304, Florj a
Statutory (1989), that the contact wasp u-
dicirl. The aggrieved party wt~l ba ontf
to a new snd complete herring ~etore . e
commiASion unless the dofenc)ant pro es
that t3,c coenmunicatian wtrs trot. is f t,
prejndicrrl. For the roaaons that folldw,
we ggash the order under review with ~Ji-
rectionet.
Itespottdent Schatzman npptit:d far n ar-
ianee t4 permit hire t4 oparatt: a quiets oil
cttauge busintss on hie property adjaeor~ to
that of petitiencr Jennings. The Zoo g
Appeals Bonrd granted Schatzmaa's re•
qut~t Tiro county commit~aian upheld) he
--~ ,u-c_r l y'7G ~u: ~3 rKUri ~ r Ur ~UI:H RN CON
a
7
1~0 Fla.
10 91S0S~~';43O~ P.O9
lT89 3Q1J'i'S>SRN i`,tEI'OTiTER, 2d SERiES
board's deeiaion. Six days prior to the
eonamiaaion'a action, s lobbyist 9clsatsa~an
employed to assist him is canaectioa with
thet proceedings registered his fdeatity as
required by seelion Z.-111{s) of the bads
Coaaty Orditsanees. Jeaafags did sat at.
tempt to detsttnine the content of any rnrsir
ntunicatloa between the lobby{at and the
commission or otherwise cImllenge the pro-
priety of any oomaautuication prior to or _at
the hearing.
FoHowiag the commission order, Jeer
Wings filed as atifiou for declaratory and
iajnaeti'va reliafta circait oonrt wherein he
alleged that 5chatzman's lobbyist caatmu•
,orated with sorAe or aIl of the toasty
commissioners prior to the vote, thus deny-
ing Jenamgs due process bout uader• the
Nailed States and Florida conatitutioaa as
well as section (Ax8} of the Citizens' $iII at
Bights, 17ade County Charter. Jennings
requested the court to conduct a heating to
establish the truth of the allegatiaas of the
complaint sad upon a favorable detrrnwia-
tiott then bo issue sa iajanctian prohibiting
use of the property sa sIIowed by the coua-
tr. I3aaed upon the ideatieal atlegatione,
Jennings also claimed in the aeoorxl count
a~f his eomplaiat that Schsttnte-n's use of
the pamittod varintaoo oonshtutad a nui-
sance which be requested the court ~ en-
jcm. The trial court dismissed Coast I of
thn crornplednt, against both Dade County
and Schatztaxa. 'i'lls court gave Jenaiaga
Leave only against Dade County to ameetd
the camglaiat and to transfer the raaCier to
the appellate diviaiaa of the circuit court
The trial court denied Scbabman's motion
to d'iamiss Count D and required him m ft'1e
an aaawer. Jennings then timely tiled this
appticatioa far common hw certiorari.
~~ . [2, 2'] We lb-ve jnrisdictwa based on the
1;' following analysis. The trial court's order
dismissed Jennings' equitable claim of aon-
s record ez parts coramnnicatrons wln-Ie it
• simultaneously reserved }4risdiction for
~' Jennings to amend his oompIsint ao as bo
seek cdnunon law certiorari review puran
'' ant to Dads Cotcnty q Marco, S.A., S26
1'' So.2d 188 ~'la.I976). Under MaTea, 7en-
aings would ba entitred solely to a review
of the record as it sow eziata. However,
mace the coataat of ao~j~
part of the a~dsting 4~
vronld prohibit the a:E
contacts' impact an tb~
miaatfon: This order lp
ao radically, altering t6
Jera>mga that it is the f
of regairiag his: to liE
forttAp, Thus, .rennin
tivates car common
lion because the or1
viewed a} constitutes a
essential requirement
quires hen to Iitagate 9
proceeding th$t caaaoi
lief xequesbed sad !or ~
afford h}ia out adequa~
tillo u ,diHarea~r, 87 E
Norris v SoutiterR ~
824 So.2d I08 (F'ia•
same re~soaiag doeaj
5chstzmaa. Noaethell
jurisdiction, there ;s tsj
exerasing it over
[3-7] At the oatseb
trial sonrrs dismissal
quality of doe procestr
judicial hearing is aot~
which a • pasty to full
entitled. Sec Cosa a
96 S.Ct. ?29, 42 L.Ed2~
v. Department o}' At#
(Iaia.i9112). Quasi-judo
sot coa~oIled by su~i
sad procedure. Sea
Real Is'etate Corxtn'~t,
DCA 1879p Woadha7
Sa2d 3E0 {F'ls. 1st ;
theksa, certain stand8
mast 6e'adhered to ie
process.• See Hadley
City ofdiiarni ~ Jerv>
Sd i>CA • 1962). Coacq
cisI decision bg~sed up
conclnaiTe if~~minisnal >
epax are denied. See
staff Asa u.s. 4sa,
!e#tq Inc u Arizona;
Ariz. 541, b92 P.2d 8
gaasi-judicial hQa,r~g
doe proaesa requirem~
provided notice of the
Carta coatacta is not
,cord, sash rvvi4q
:ertaiament of the
commission's date
~ the effect then of
a relief ava:labk bo
nncticnal equiraleat
igate is a different
Eimely petitioA e~ r~
v certiorari juriadia
r sought to be re.
departa:e from the
of law, and b) tv-
pvtative claim in a
e-fford him the re-
hat reason does not f
r remedy. yes Tax-
o2d 413 {F1a19~;
ell Tel. ~ Tel. Ca, #
i ACA 1960). The f
sot apply aitatnst :
as, because we have
impediment to o~tr
RCzm4n as a party. ;i
lof our review of the ~
we note that the
required is a gaasi-
aatne as that to
judicial hearing ins
per, 419 U.S. 56fi, ;;
k 7~ u~~l~ I~a~r~,
7ada.., 4Ii go.2d I84
~al proceedings are f
~t rules of evidence i
Astore: u Fto~tida ;
4 So.Yd 40 (Fla. 3d
z: iYillia~ 847.:
1868). None-
of basic fairness
order so afford doe=
421 So.2d at 184;
t 1S9 Sa.2d sin (1•'la.
LlY, x quasi jadi•
tt-a record is not
loads of due pro-
Morpan v. United
9-81, 56 S.Ct. 946,
9as~; western Gil--.
Corp. Comm ~, I21
S {ClApp.1979}. A
generally meets basic
~ts if the pasties are
hearing and as ap•
' r-+uu-zJ-Ly`y~ 14' ~4 FKUM ~'' ~ Y OF 6171:x1 Rf~TON Ttl 9130542'74303 P. 10
,.. ~ i ~'.
JENNINGS v. DADS CQUNTY ji34j
attacta i$ _cu...sas sold 1337 (1tfaJ-pp,1Dlef. 1'!'!p
,,
such Xw #~~~' ~ be heard. In ~gna5i-judicial quasi-judical grocEedings. }judicial
~„_., ... '' zoning pivice¢dlAga, the pirUes mast• be ofticesa~ ahvuld avoid all stzcll contacts
~ 'meat •a! ~ •• ~le•to present evidence, caaea~camine witr whew they are identifiable. H ever, we
~ lie co sion's deter '' "~~, .
'}sea the Erect then of ~ nesaea, and be inforrined of atl the •tacts recognize the ~eallty that ts, 'oners
the re ' avst7able ~ • • ~~`' aPa+' w~' the oommiaaion acts. Com1 are electxd olriviala lu wlilvtt ca ~ Ly they
~'e" l aclts:valeat •~' Reef Nus'eertied, IrsG v. BcsBcoek tb; 410 may unavoidably be the rtrcipien of unso-
,,„ 5o.2d 648, 6b2 (Fin. 8d DCA 1982): listed ea parbe comznnnicatimas ~~regatding
~tigate ' ~ a ditfeieti} '•` '' The repas,'ted decietoaa cataiderfag the gt:asi jadiaial mattests thcy arc ~ dacida
~.• -:
time petstioa aC~ •;«ti;,;.•a
a-~yy eertf • jo~di~ due process et#ect of an ea pane onttuaaa't• ~ actarrence of atuch a tom 'moon is
. - ;+ M- ~•~ cation upon a quasi judicial decision are $ quasi-judicial proceeding does. not rnau-
'~ii'de! eau t t0 be re- ., ,~.,~: dutP Antamatic. reversal N alts w-1
~i•a d ~'OtA fife conflicting• Sorrie o0ttsts }cold Mat: an vac
int; of Ia ,and b} % ~~~ "~ pane 4ommttnication does not deny due bold that the allegation of prej>i , reaulb
ids a patati daim m a r paviceas where the substance of the comma iag from ea parbe contests the deci
,eaai afro him the re- . ~' ~ ~ nicatiott wag mpable of diamvety by tltn Sion tltaltera in aQuasi-judicial e
=or that on does trot complaining party iit time to rebut it on the states a cause of action. ., Wants
~e Set 7l:tt ~ =?: ~- record Sea, ag., RieJtardaon A Psrale~ M'aautger-tenl; PA?~CO. Upon tli aggrieve
_' ~ ~' 402 U.3. 389, 410. 91 S.Et. 1480, 1431-82. ed parCf z proof that an ax contact
;. ~,
R 8o.2d 42 (~'1a.1966); ~ ~'• occarred its effect is presumed be prejv-
`"'Btll ?'e~ ~ Tis~ Co, 28 1,.Frd.2d 842 (1971); U~itsd Air Liatep, ,
~~ ' ~ ~ •~' ~ dtclal unless the defendant pro ~ the c0ct~
a ad DCA 1980}. The Ins v. C.A.&, 349 F.2d 238 (D.t;.Cir.1962};
faai• not a p1Y tt8~ainat , „ ~ Jarrott o Scri~ntr, F251,Stxpp. 827, 834 trary by competent evidence. ~ ~ 90.304.
>re3esa, beta a ova have ~:: ;~ ~~ (D.D.C.1964)_ Other courts focus upon the Sea pta~rterali11 Ccldm¢ll ~ of Ite•
4r•:ba fompedi ant to our .' 1 r nature of the ex parts commtuticaLion and tfrmnent, 872 3o.2d 438 (P'la.l (for di~-
t:•.
$ehitautan as a party. • Vii: ; =~' whether it was material to the point that it caa$lon of rebuttgble presnrap affect
•-~ ~' udiced the cempiaiaing puLy and thus ~ the burden of pruvf?. Beta a kaowl-
~'of our ' w of the • '~ , ~ ~ P~ ~
-• •.. ~ ~' resulted ~ia a denial o! pracednral due pro- edge and evidence of the cants ~ s impact
W4 IIo that rite r
in a u ' ~,,,~ ~~: teas: L',g» Waste Management sz Pollu- are pecahsriy in the heads of the endstat
m4 . Q S6i ~ `'` reran Cirislr~t Bd, 176 T1LApQ.S~I 1085, 125 qut~i-judlw2d olric~it(a}, we rind s bur
~ ~dieial l es~a~ ~ ~~~ +~ : ~s IILDee. 524, 58o x.E2d 582 (GtApp.i99S1, des apprapriade. Sts 1'ccJ~tt' vsdeo
"''x' ~ _ • ~ 'appeal derezed, 126 Ii1.2d 67b, 180 T11.Det:. 5ya 'R Al7ialRCable, 4?9 $o.2d 81 ~7a. 8d
+~ 4 9 V.S. 56b, ;,r•~; : ~ 490, 68? N.L.3d S19 (1@SOr Proje~eeiereal Z?CA iABb}; dtlstate Fina~»at:~ Corp. r+.
~ ( ~' .~ad~y ~• `'' Avr Tra}fia Coatroliera ~ '(PATCt)1 tit ~i~xraerma>z, 830 Fed ?40 (brit .1964h
:;
in~' 41 'so.2d 184 • ~ ~ ~` lsbderaI Labor Relations Autk, 6$6 F.2d
' iag3 are ...~ ; ~.. 5d?, i;6dr66 (D GC.n' 1982}; E~dsnan ~ tiaj Itt detsrrstining Lire pre .. ef-
'w..' suits eridestcr ; R: a 28 A.D.2d b 284 N.Y.S.2d 865, feat of as ex parts coutmuaicatio the trial
Astore ~~ I'+9~h 'A'. + court should consider the foil criteria
450. 40 (Fla. Sd 840 (Ct.J1.pp.196T). wbfch ova adopt (roan PA7'C0, ~ F.2d at
~~ 9i {sans, Z07 > [61 The eouagr adopts the first P 56d-$s'.
~ ). Norse- and argues that denaiags eras ant detderl (whhether, as a result of ' per ex
ie fairness dae process because he either knew or p~ eotanmunicatiotts, the ag , a deci-
=y order to afford dtt~ should hsvs ltaowa o! sn a: parts mmmu- stonms)rffig process ~ bly
;42I So, at 184; •- aication dae to tae ataztdatary registrat>ott tinted so as to make the u1 ' to judg-
~` 139 So d 513 (F9s. sequined o.# ~bbyists. The oonntp ltitrtlter
~~ meat of the agency unfair, er as to
~T. a 9~ei-judr rnnte!ncit< that IP:nnings fAitptl to ssvR11 hint- ~ isueoeunL yarty yr to the g>{ lit itster
"the ni is sot self of section 33-318 -bf the I}sde COUitty ~ that the agency was ob to pro-
ia4~; t duR pro. Gods to subpoena the lobbyist to testify st rect. In ~,~$ this ~ anon, a
~o*pan a Unftcid the hesetiaR sv ass to detect and refute the number of oo~+sideratiw,s tru+~ be rely
~'~-81, 5E3 S.Ct 9D8 'o
Content f camutircatt n.
s O i-tf YX arttl CO
Y P vans: the gravity of fife ex cotstrttu-
~.~k W tcrat. Git We disagree with the county's position. tdcattona; ovheWter the con may
m'n, 12I [4-121 Ex parts comtatnticatzoas are ia- have influenced the agency's to de-
ttt.Ap 1~~' A hereatl7 improper and are attatltema to vision; whether • ttte party g the
Qeta basic
`• ~ the are ~ !. It ass conceded at oral argusecnt than the quasi4udicial. `.
nd an op- .' beariat before the vommiacion is this cast ass
NUIi-25-1992 14:25 FROM ~" TY OF 30CA RATON TO 913054"c"r 4373 P. 11
~s,~~..~.d~ -
~.
1342 Fla. 689 SOtiTS)SRN RE1't)I3TER, 2d SERIES
improper contacts benefited from tho Should the resspondenta p ace enough ev.
agenay~a ttltiasata doeuioa; whether the idetlce td dtapet the Area ption, then ;!
t contents of the Cotnintmirabona were itri- ws7I become the duty of Mai judge to
' known to opposing parties, who there detrrtaine the claim its iig of sil the evi.
1 ~ lore had tb opportunity m respond: and derux in the case.'•'
~ i whether vacat3an of the agency's ded- For tho forogomg yaws ,the aPP~
i sion and remand fair sew proceedings lion for common iaw certi ' is granted.
~ wvulcl sserre a usefitl parents Since the Th8 Ordez* of the IL Court are
? . printapai concerns ai the mns•L are the quashed s and x~ttiatsded i directions
~ .
lategaty of the ptviceas sad the fairness .
f of the t~cttlt, tncohatua3l rules Nava ]ittit
BARI{DULI,, J., ~oIIC
~ place in a judicial decision whether to
' racate a voidable agency Proceeding. In- 1• EBGUSON, judge (eo ~ tarring}.
y stat-d, say sncla decision ttwsi of net~wi• I t;rmenr in t6P reanh an write separat'.
~ ~ ty be as exercise of equitable discretiaa Ly to address tsvo argume to of the appel-
Accord E c2 ~ Hauling. F~ m Polltclian lees: (1) This court in C 18sgj Nurser.
[ Co>rtroi Bd, 116 Ill.tSpp.8d b86, ?1 111.Den. f~ l~ y ~~~ Ca, 4Z So.2d 648 (1:'la.
I
• 58?, 603, 451 N.E.2d 566. STI (Ct.App.I988), 3d DCA 1982'}, rajxtod ptA to cste•
crfJ"d, 10? Ill.2d 33, 89 Il1.Dec. 82i, 481 gorize County commission ~ ettrittgs on dis-
N.>i:.3d 66d (1986), trio baaadary changes "legislative,"
'
'• we hold that the
[14, l5] Accordingly while treating heartags ott
~ app5cations fey
' i ,
allegation of a prejudicial ex pane comtnq-
spectral exceptions or
judicial' , and
. (~ the pe
ces as q~asi-
honer does not
F
~ ' ai .-aucua in s quaeiyudicial proeeedit:g be- -
,
state a cause of actiots b alleglag simply
•
` fore the Dade County Cotnmisaion wt11 ost- that a Iobbyist disco the case is a
able a partyy to maintain afl original oq-
' pritrate moetSng with metn~ of the Coup
' • nitable oattae of ao4ots Do aatablish it
s.
claim. Onto eatablishad, the offending par ~ Consntlsaion prior to ~ hearing. It la
' Ly will be required to prove sa abaeaos of Blear frota Judge Neabi opiaioa for the
~ i psajadica z court that neither t is accepted.
a~ ~ [i6~i8] In the present fetes, Jennings' Z,egislative aid ~adiciai
'• cotnplaitlt does sot allege that any eommn l~Cnclivrw scc!
`i nication whicb did attar Caused hiss proju- In support of its arga , ent, that "[t]h1a
dice. Conaegtsent~p, we direct that nposs Court has proviouslq reje cted attempts to
remand Jenaiaga shall be afforded an op- pttegt-rize county conimi 'on bearings on
~:~' partunity to amend 1>is complaint: Upon district boundary change, as 'legislative',
~
' such an atsseAtlnnent; Jennings shall be pro- whSe treatirsg hearings a applications for
; rided as evidentiary hearing tD present his special aa:cnsptions or tea as 'gttasi•
~'c• piime- fade case that ex parts Contacts judicaa]',^ Dale Cvuniy t.~s Conai 1tsrf
~~ occurred. Upon each proof, prajndtce shall Ntcrstrfes, ,fns A Babco Company 410
~ ~
j be presamed. The burden wpl then shift to
the respondents W r,Rbut the prrsmuptioa So.2d 648 (F'la.. 3d DCA
men! is teade foe the
87~. The argu-
iag
a of bria
~
' that prejadico occurred to the claimant. this Case within what th g
respondents de•
4 ~
;. 2. Ia suds a proceeding, the priaeiples and tttax- rnueiratioa•lnd sufficient i pact upon the deci-
~_• lms of etpti(y are appFi~able. see 22 b'ts.fur.2d ,
Sion sad. t2tercEorz. wh she vaeauon of t2+~
t : .84"uY 3$ ~, et seg p96o). ageaeys decison and rz foe a sew P~
s. Ih rchuttirib the presutaption of prejudioe.:r Cecding would be likely t el,aage the tasutt.
:~ epe+ndeat msty tr.1T on arty favorable evidatce •
perseatsd during the elaimaat's esaain•chief. ;n• 3. 1~pthing 3n tIIis rieaston It affect our hold-
; ciuding that adduced dutiag rapottdatt'a cross. ii7g is lAtalt Walton A,aeriea t. ,Nan-
,;. sxataiaadoa of elaitaaat's wittsesses. roe Cawrry. 448 So.Zd l2 b1a. 3d 2)CA 1984?
4. undo the rAS•n~o test sJvywl, wie o[ the (epuntj eemraiaairoa actta
p'i'ty}. to a leglstatlve cs-
'1 prfenar~ ooteoems is whether the ex parts coat- .
r;lJli-2~,-t'~~J2 1:1:2b FROM ~ `Y OF BOCA RA TON _ TO ~~~ 913654271313 P. 12
JENNIlVGS ~ DAD$ COUNTY 1343
a~... afta sass tst~ t~-+-rtws att. tstt?
x•' ' '
~acrtbe aa' a legialslivefunetioa euseptiass to anew le to be
ooaditiono by taakimg
~
sthe ralo against ex pane wntcutt>sseat3oas. part of
applied thereafter to all or sd
,iXndeed. there is laaguage is the Cara! Rerf those subject to its power.
'opiaion. partitnlarbr the dicta that "lt is the Sttbtirtia~ Afsdirat Cetttsr, 69? at 661
;cisarartxr ul the adtuiaiatratire heAriug (quoting P>~+ttfa 9: Atianttc t Line
jlesding'to file action o! the adatiniatrative ~,~ 811 U.3. 210, 226, 29 S.Ct , @9, 63
.'b«iY that detertniaea fife label" as tegialar L.~d. Lb0 (1908)).'
'tire or quasi-judScial, Corot keaf A! 668, It it settled that tho otsa vnt and
'which, when read out of context, lords $ of zoning ordinances ' a kgiola-
• attpport to Dade County's eoabentione. ~ five fianetion--by case law, Sclta ~ v. C~[ty
~~ abatraat propasitian, file atstetaent is ~.g.~;i Beoch, 112 3a.2~i Ss8 1969);
' ittacc~te. Yacltado a MttaQrava 519 So 829 (P'1a.
;~ 1~-heleaa the character of an adutiaiatra 3d DCA 1987? (eft battc}. rev, ed 528
tire l~!s<rirsg wiSi dtst'reniYSr. tvhrthes the 9o-2d 694 (F'1a.1988), by atatu sections
,
proceeding is quasrjudicial or e>setstttive, lk 1683181 artd 166.441, Florida, Statxites
Groot o She,~Sald, 85 So.2d 818, 915 (F'la. (1989), and by ordinsttc;e, Dad Countp
•19671. it is the >zatute of the aat performed Code s; 85-808. S'ee alto Ande n, Lain o}'
that detafminas its character as lagishtive Zoszi~, 5 L23 ¢d ]%d.19767 (, utg is a
or atlterwise. Suburban Medical Center le>~a]etive act regresentir:g a egielative
a. Olathe Corntreunity Xoag, 228 I;;aa. judgment as to bo4v land wi the City
• : $20, 328,:597 P.2d 864, 661(1979). Sea alas should be utilized 'tad whsra l'lnsa of
;.Walgrttn Ca. u Polk Caurtty, 5i'4 Sa2d dett~rcatioa between the savo~at zvaes
I119, IIZO ~'la. Zd DCA 2$8>~ "The tlnasi should be drawn); 101 CJ.S. Zgttittg and
~Odictat nature of a proceeding is not al- Land Piatzni7tp $ 1 (19b~ (~a ). It is
'~ tared by mere pt~ocedural flaws."}. also isirly settled' in this state chat the
' A jadfChtl iagttiry iaFestigates, declares granting of varia»ces,= suds ~ ttccep~
sad t:ui'ortxa lisbt~ities as they sated on floor or perllfita, are quasi-ludi act3otts'
' pteseat fatty aad under k-ws supposed Watprern Ca ti Potdc Gburtlg, 4 8o2d
.. atreadt to exist. ?'hat is its purpose aad ll19, 1120 (F'ta. 2d DCA 1888 Ciig of
end. Le~lstitioa, oa !ht other hand, Nas. Smyrna Beafdi a .BarLo~ty 14 9o.2d
leaks to the fatitre attd changes e~dstiAg Ss2 f 5th DCl~ (Cowst:t, J., . tarring
;,i.: ite~ylt'ts ma Gbra! Rerf, tlse majority OpiaiOq tit+tdthip. 7 F1aSurltl, Bafldfx~ orrd
ret'en to gtrasiJudlctai tpalts~ prooeedlags,' s Lastd Qantro(s it 14ty (ip7fi).
"'' eottfotss3di~ pttraat: *rhith hay its mss is 1'he normal f<sacttoa of a vs ' is to par
fals Cor
e
r,
f
k
,l
aat
m~
v. Dade Coratty
.
32
8
~'
R
x
v mil a ehaage !n "bnl1~ ratri ~ or hei;itt
Q
n
1
~~
~
y
~
Q
.
,y,
~
~
(
M
t
. 1 PV~iY mr. )YV.Cli. 3d 1~1~ ~na7~. ya+~.c S~ ~,tty h}1'Sttlll~fl}y~ ~tt iLCt Cka~1~S tR
rdco h~~^rr{--nf~~-~~~pcnoeditrat du~e=pcoeas' oaatreru a
~ "~ etasalfiatioffi". Caage v. >,d Slemrs
_
legislatin yrocasdFng tam a gttaddaditiai pro- ~~ !Si 5o.2d 729 (Fla. 3d 1963j.
• ceedmg, tdtia; CoS'st1 Rdef That ptvpoSitlvtt 3. An administraHvq bed: aats ep.s~dy,xtiriallr
rttat: afaui of sn aatirs body or admintstsattn
law ff as act i; i+a essence (egit~tiva is tdtatae. what "st adjt~attes prime rights of ~ particular
~ a ltarirts which oom rorith dta:
tar, the Fact of a aottx aad a ~d dan sot
ttanafornt it into a ~it aCL lE tt world be a s~iremeatt, and asaltas of
ihcu as~d eoaelts:Eoas eE taw on diaputad
lagi;:isttye act wSthout nonce and : ]fear4ns, it 3s
sttq a lcgislativa act with notice and a hearing. lasses ~~ courts aavti
~ ass ~ ao ~~areniiat judid ~ standards.
' See Arittls x ~tttantk Coast Lltu la. 221 U.S.
53 t r,t 150 (1908} Re4gwe v.
- 210, 29 S.Ct. 67 Sea ~, of ~~~ v. t?rar~ar Cant 299 5o.2d
,
l~rftls~ Loors Qr 7}wt Ca, 1?t '1,5.362,14 5.L'L ~S7 ¢ta. 4th DCA 197Aj.
1'147, 38 t..l?d. 1014 (1894). Oft rGYievf of Iesislative acts. Ilse , art mate'
:deferential iagniry, te., is ttse ex m of dls-
2. A varianoe is a modtlia~don of the s~ulag crttioaary authorttJ '7sdsly debatai~ 3ewtle-
ad:.s"nue whteh n+q7 bz graatad whoa suels irv( Rancher flbnroowaers .4uh h Brtswanf
variance rinlI not be eecstraxy tin tine pttbtic inter- art , day
Cour:ryt 502 Sold 932 (F1a. 4tb
act and wiles, sluing to ooadittaos peculiar to ~
tttsd 511 So.2d 994 {Fta.19a7). F these 4
the property and' not the result of the attieos of no tegalress+ent that a goveraasea body, acs-
tly s;rylteaaL a t:eeral enlorceu"ait o~ Ru wall- lug ~u Sts Ie~lstlre sapadt7, snppol t
ss asdons
ttatsce would result in ussn~ry and utsdtse s
with Eindi»gs of fact aad coral of law.
{
HUG-25-1992 14:28 FROM r'TY pF 30CA BATON Tp 9130542`;':1303 P. 13
1544 ~~- ss9 sou~rl~lzrt I~~oE:TEI~ sd SERIE3
I ~ speCffilly), ley. ttme4sd, 4Z4 9v.7k1 T80 (I'I~-. differea¢ea boiw-aoa gtcaawjd 'vial and log-
I9$l); Cluj of Apopka u Orange Coust~ty, islativa proceadiz3gs in Land se eases.
{ ~ 299 Sold 857 {F9a. 4th DCA 1974); Sun we clarify Coma Rssf, aceordaaoe
i Ita}I Xoneea, Ina n. Cveaebgr of !)odd, 166 with ~ faetar ere heldia6 a the! logioL-
~ ~ So.Zd $27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)• ttan dealing an applicati for reaoaing
A variance contemplstea a noncotaform- has at preclusive effect txt: ~- subsequent
~ ittg use in order to alleviate an ttndne bulgy opplicstion for the some
the applicant cn<an show svbs~ ing, unless
antial and ma
• den ~ on the individual propert7 aanaer
caused by the exi~ag zouiag. Rezoning terial ahangea in cizt:nmstat{
i
575 S
:~~
C:t
~ ~= ces. 7~eisler
l 218 (Fl
oontsmplarax, a change in e~6iteg caning ,
o.
y
am
'
relying on
DCA 1991) a. 3d
li!aef
An
rules and regabttions witlua a district, sub- , .
~ ~ division or other eompa:atively large area interpretation of Goral f as holding
e ut s; gives govatameaLSl ttaik ?'t-sup rot, that ther8 fs a0 IoBg~ s distinction be-
Bird 53 So.2d 717 (Flz{,I9Slk 3fayJlower tween legislative actinas all quasi-judicial
Property, I~ u Oily off' 1~'ori Laxderdaie, actions of a county cotzttnia on in land nee
I87 So.2d 8d9 (F13. 2d DCA. 3,982}; 1 Qt A s goes fsr beyond the al holding of
~~ • C.T.B. Zoni~ty a~td 1'.atzd Ptamai~tg §281 the ~- sad is clearly oneous. See
,~ ,. (1979). note 1 supra:
R.eliaace by the respon ntg on 12aak
.
Coral Rse~ Cass G7ari/Fed Ll''aiteze l;eapras eaf' A a u Morc:ve
Catcrtty, 448 3o?d 1I70 Sd DCA
~ Coral Reef immlved a legialativa action. 1984), is simt7arly In that mge
E { The iasne before the court was whether we held that county comtz~ ssioners, wbea
r
r
there was a showing of subal~ttial and
acting in their legislative .
parities, have
• material changes is a 1979 appIIcatioe for s,~ the x{gltt to publicly state; their views on
rezoning so that ;a 1978 denial of an apple • pending legislati•r taat*asisl laaatk We,I6on
.~ cation for the same changssr oa the same Leu~gue does act address a fssue of ex
pdtsCel, br the same applicant, tvatt]d net be pane commtzttications or hearing pro-
I,t
~• precluded by !es 1nt71cata ptia~ples. ~ It
t neceissar
1978 hearin
t4 hold th
as nauneerno:ses in s~aoi-jug i 1 psoewdiags.
1 . y
g
w
no
e
;~ quasi-jtzdieial in Character to order m find Lobbyi~ •
.; " that the 1978 trsolntion had preclusive ef+ Jennings argues here t tht bahiad-
".j, feet on the 1979 soniag hearing. There is a• thescenes lobbying ~ of th eotnmisaionera
requirement for protedttral fairness in sIl by $chattutan, for ffie ~ se of ittflueno-
t , huxl nee heaucisegs, xhtKites oa an opglico- ing the outcome of as s 1 from r gnasi•
;.. tion for a boundary cltaage or a rarianoe. judicial proceeding, viola d the G~tizens'
f : Adherentx to that coastitational 3tsndard, Bt11 of Rights s of the ]}a County Char
,,.
` however, does not alter the dvst:iT+a! 4gA1 tats, as well tts the dne p s provisions of
f. "Lobbylag+ is at$aed as ear paeonal so~icita- curs, by Pas'ession. in:po tty, or the ass of
ties of a maaaba of a legislati.e 6odr dttrir-8 a [ndttcetncttta the pacing of Uls. public as .veil
W eaesion tAerea~ by ¢i*+^rn tneerview, or latter or a3 privat4 wh9edt involwc Sa to the promoters.
eneseegq or other ttieans sad app9aaees not Ib
jaeasxscrfl~J addaa:std solely to the fiedgrnsret tv
' tYV~ err oppoeq or to vote for nr against, ssty
hill, rCalutton, repore, e: claim P~du18: e-' to k Section a(8). Citizeae' Bi
Cotsaty Crtarter, provides is~ of Ruts. Dade
pertiaeat part:
be introduced .... b7' say pexaon ... who Is At say waina or Dena: ~ 'erg in which re
®pley~ed foe a cbnaideratlaa by a peraoa or view is exelneivrly t?y ". a parq or his
.. cacgoratioa lntaottd is the passage or dafest wc~asc) shat! be eAtit]ad t presort h;s case or
• of sucl+ bill rew[atirfn, M n~,ert. or claittt. for
the purpose of proeuriag tlsa posses. oe dsfeac d~il,an by Drat or
submit rebuttal eviaeaw terry e:vtdenee. to
d to eenauct each
rhet+eof." Hlaelts Law Ditiloaary 108b (rev. 4th
ed. 196a}. (Satpbada supplied). The work of Cro4Y~C2aaYitlatioa ss ata~
fat! sad true d~sebatre be requdrnd For s
the facts. '~
lebbyina iR trsfermed by bbbyiets. dacimrt of xqr aKh a hoard depnrt•
A Iobbylsx b one who ttukrs it a bustness to meat or twflsoritr must hssed upon the
`std' mambas of a !eglslatlve body sad pro- facts in the raeord.
s
riUG-25-1992 14:29 FROP1 ~"TY OF BOCK RATON TO 913054274303 P. 14
'~'
'`~ quasi-judtciaJ sad leg-
yt Iand !tae cease.
~' R.oaf, in acoo:da:tee
~ioleHng Daly' that Ieglalar
~pplie:ation for reat~~
j shed on a subsequent
ire name reaandng, anlesa
ia>!~A substa:rtial artd mar
~•egrClimataaCe9. T3•eistsr
~ 675 $o.Zd ZI8 (Fie. 8d
j{dg oa .Corot Beteff: Alt
~, Gbrat Rcsf sa holding
i longer a distinction be-
~'act3ons and quasi judicial
~y commiseioA in land use
fond the actual bolding ttf
~.: dearly erroneous. See
~• -
Ee respondents on •Ittctdc
of A~rterica v MonrAe
,.2d . I t7n c>, liz. 8d .DcA
j, misplaced. In that. cane
mtY. colYUnissioneta, when
egisIative capacities have
~* state the5r views oa
4 tlnttte:s. Izttak Walto~t
Yaddress the isauei of sic
_ or preheatistg pro•
judiedal proceedings.
~~~ . •
here that the hehittd-
~! of the comr:tiasioners
e,the parpesset of iaflneao-
Q as appeal from a gttaai-
;: siolatexl the Cfttzelts'
~, the Davie Catlnty Chsr•
~dtfe process provitsiotts of
~~.
0.1aaPorittaitY. or the tae et
wdas of bills, public as t+rcll
nwl+~e gain to Life promoters.
~r'J
."'.
1~ '
~~•!
..
• z'
~.
• ;:~:
:~;
~~.
;~,.
•.i•:
:~
•~;,..
••.::.
dot t3t11 ~ Rightc, Dade •
amides 1n pertiamt part: •
~ ocher hear3rig in which rc•
b by esxtioruL a arty or f~ . .
~dekd to prv~sat his cars or
'tldenae, aadt to co~cl~ ds '
° as awr be t>!ctutred fur a •
ire of fife facia. 'jbe
~~ be bbased ~a th+ •..
- •.' Ts
_~ moRRia .. STATE ~. X 5-1361
a1.Ysit+ tlw~d 1s61 ~Pl-•lDt~c 1191)
the United States and Florida Col:atitu (19'l9). Adherence to proved which in-
tlona We agree, oevioaaly, that tee Lobby- sure fairt:osa "is tisaential not y to the
ing actions were ttnlawfuL Dade County legal validity o! tbs admasiatz st~ regttSa-
.~ and 8chittzmsa lr~poad that Jetltfinga is t3on, bat also to the titainten of public
~,; ealtttled to tto reltet t+ecsttse hC has not t~nisderiCB m the nettle and son daess 0>e
~,~ alleged and demonstrated a reaaltiag grejt~ this important govtaaanertt:l prodaea." Id
dies. In the opinion orf rehearing this court
now elsetrl
rwjaceM that ar
ntn
t Sg7 P.Zd at 662 {edtftfg 2 Arn.dur ~ldmat-
~
r y
e~
g
.
fslraitve Late $ 3llll. The co
tltutionsl
Prejudice is to be presumed, without i!nr- cotilptllaions which led to the es ~ liahmern
I~.,• ther proof, from the mere fact that any aE miles regardtn>i the disq Lion elf
~ ~•
county coenmistlioAOr Lod a tx aa-
g~ Fries
nd
~ Sp aFAI? with tgttal force tai every tti-
_ thence to a lobbyist, whose purpose wan to btmsl exenciaing judicial or ijndicfal
_ solicit the commissioner to vets s certain Snaettons. 1 AmJar.2d Adnt refine
~ way iii an admiaiatrativa prelaeediag far
• Leto $ 84, at 884 (1962}; L'8lir o~ attakcts-
~' reasons nat
>setteasarilp addressed aoleiy to ass n Florida Pub Ssru m~ 441
i ;~
~ the merits of Life petition, sad that the So.?d 6E0 (F'Ia.lii88) {standard din tita••
'~
• commissioner did vote aCCOrd'inRly. Stasi qualifying aEw.nay ht>!td is same sGtndurd
•' ing with the legs! dP.fftiitiott of lobbying, need is disgaaliiyiag jadge~. Seel o Roy-
,~; sea • note • 4 supra, and applyitfg common era u Ftiedmat:, 488 F.Supg. 42~ Tex.
ktfowledge as m how i27e ptactics works, 1.9'f'1) (rule as to d3squu8Scation ! jtldgs:s
I
* there is a compelling reason !or placing the is same for admitliserative agena a as it is
.
• bttxden of pinning no prejcfdice on the party for courts) {Ming K. Dania, Aei'~ttitt&!tw
y: reaponsiblo far the ea parts c~mmraaaica tit's Law $15.44. at 560 (19'f2)). •(Rt;tttr a
~~ ~'~• Boast ojCotnm'ra ojAdansa C~tcnty, 96
Although art ex parts coltunpnication Wash.2d 605, 63? P.Sd 944 {I91~) {satrie~.
with a quasi ~ndirsal tnbanal snakes itz ft-
net actlon vokta6ie, rather tttaa void par ass, «
the presnlagtion which ie dra~i-a ftotn the o Tstrr~mrsults:tN
~• tact of the improper conduct, is applied to
` p¢omote a atrvtlg saclal;wilcy and is sttf~
~~- drat evidence to coffvlnce the faelrfitfder •
that the ianxent party has been pteju- ~~, ~. MORRIS, Ap t.
diced; Liss rebutxablt: pralnmptiott impvaea •
~ upon the. pattj- against whom it operates ~ , t'•
_
E ~
- the btarden of proof catfceraiag the nonex- 3TAZ'E of F[orlda, Appe
~ istence of the preazeutt:nel fur.J;a 8 90.SOd,
1'ev. 91••oZ50T.
` Fla.Stat. (1491 • IJ
), epartmettt oj.igrie•ul-
~, turr ~ Co:zsumer Sertla. 1r. Ba~tanrtq 568 District Court of Appeal of orids,
• $o.2d ?A, 31--35 (F1a.1990); Black's Law Second District.
f Dictionary 1349 (4th ed. 1968 Ott •~ 1991.
Esc rte Ieh
pa byvag of an administrative
Rehearirfg Deified Dec. 6
~~91.
body acting 4tlasi-jttdic~sUy denies tht par- ,
~ ties afair, open, and itsfpartial bearing: Appeal parauaat to FIa.R.App. 8.140(8)
: St:iittrbatt Msddcal Cetatar e. Olathe Cam- from the Circait Cot:rt fpr Pine
County;
• +nx-ttit~ Hoop-, 226 Kea. 820, 69? p.2d 654 ~
~tichard A. Lace, dodge.
fi. PA1't0 >.. Federal Labor Relatinne Aeulrarlty, cornmankatfoo on public record. ~ 'oa
i •. laBS F.7d Sag (A.C.Ctr.14s2). relied oa b7 Judge ¢f) sit-tes that where: Life coat rsoa was
IYeabitt, atepports thin view. There the ctant was IasmviAglp made by d party is violsi v of this
wuatsuiaa soenaa ss7(.~S? of the Aaeriiuisus auts~top, toe parry may be res;uu• "to Chow
:_ Live Proredsu~e Act, YoreraEnB rx ysrte eamtn~ e~use wily bra claim. err inmost Sa proeeed-
alatioas The Act pt•ovldes, in anboct;tlon (C?. tug should not be dismissed. demiad tlisiesard•
that a member of the body i:awolvad la the ed, ar otherwicc adversely ttt'kttsd tenouat
~. Jeeis:aad process who ccoei.w a~ prvhlbioed of rush vtolagoA.r s U.5.t:.A. ~ 53 dXll(C}.
•
f ~, e~mmunlmtion shall place the eaateats of the: (D). ~
TOTAL P. 14