Brevard County v Jack Snyder 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993)

1
Brevard County v Jack Snyder 627 So. 2d 469
(Fla. 1993)
2
Facts

• Jack Gail Snyder owned a small piece of land
  one-half acre zoned for General Use (GU).
• Snyder submitted a rezoning request to
  multi-family,
• This would allow 6 to 8 apartments to be built on
  the half-acre lot.
• Snyder committed to fix the flood elevation
  problem before the petition got to the planning
  zoning board for action.
• P Z recommended for the rezoning.

3
General Use

• Brevard County widely used this zoning category.
  It allowed a number of residential, commercial
  and business uses.
• The Brevard Comp Plan designated the property for
  residential use, thus proscribing the
  non-residential uses allowable in GU at this site
  while allowing virtually all types of residential
  uses.

4

• The property was shown in the Comp Plan as
  Residential Use.
• Both the existing GU and proposed RU-2-15 were
  consistent with the Comp Plan
• The neighbors appeared arguing that they did not
  want apartments in their single family
  neighborhood due to the increase in traffic.
• The BCC did not state a reason for the resulting
  denial.

5

• Snyder filed a petition for certiorari in the
  circuit court. The 3 judge panel denied the
  petition 2- 1.
• Snyder then filed a petition for certiorari in
  the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
• The Fifth DCA sided with Snyder

6

• The 5th DCA found . . .
• that the Snyders petition for rezoning was
  consistent with the comprehensive plan
• 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
• that the denial of the requested zoning
  classification without reasons supported by facts
  was, as a matter of law, arbitrary and
  unreasonable.

7

• Brevard County appealed to the Supreme Court
  arguing . . .
• That the County was engaged in a legislative
  action and
• That the standard of review was fairly
  debatable, citing Euclid v Ambler.
• Snyder argued for strict scrutiny being applied
  to rezonings because of the requirement of plan
  consistency in Florida law.
• Shouldnt consistency with the Comp Plan mean
  something?

8

• Rezoning actions
• which have an impact on a limited number of
  persons or property owners,
• on identifiable parties and interests,
• where the decision is contingent on a fact or
  facts arrived at from distinct alternatives
  presented at a hearing, and
• where the decision can be functionally viewed as
  policy application, rather than policy setting,
• are in the nature of quasi-judicial action.

9
Quasi-judicial if . . .

• Limited number of people or property affected
• Interests and parties are known
• Decision is contingent on facts
• General policy has previously been set.

10
Legislative . . .

• An action by a governing body is legislative if
• They are adopting a policy that will have general
  applicability to similarly situated properties or
  persons
• The application of that policy will be done later
  based upon facts about particular situations.

11
Example

• City establishes a policy,
• by enacting an amendment to the zoning ordinance,
• That no property may be zoned or rezoned that
  will result in daily vehicular traffic greater
  than 2,000 at an unprotected elementary school
  crossing.
• This is an establishment of policy and thus a
  legislative act.

12
Example continued . . .

• When a rezoning application came in that
  otherwise met the criteria for the requested use,
• Traffic volumes would have to be checked to
  determine whether that use would result in more
  than 2,000 vehicles per day at an unprotected
  elementary school crossing. .
• This is the application of a policy and thus not
  legislative.

13
Quasi-Judicial

• An action based on the application of previously
  established policy in a particular situation
• Based upon the facts as they apply to that
  situation.

14

• Would the rezoning of a particular parcel result
  in more than 2,000 vehicles per day at an
  unprotected elementary school crossing?
• This is the application of established policy
• With the action on the application dependent on
  conclusions of fact with respect to
• Traffic to or from the subject development
• Passing through an unprotected elementary school
  crossing

15

• We hold that a landowner seeking to rezone
  property has the burden of proving that the
  proposal is consistent with the comprehensive
  plan and complies with all procedural
  requirements of the zoning ordinance.
• At this point, the burden shifts to the
  governmental board to demonstrate that
  maintaining the existing zoning classification
  with respect to the property accomplishes a
  legitimate public purpose.

16

• In order to sustain the board's action,
• upon review by certiorari in the circuit court,
• it must be shown that there was competent
  substantial evidence presented to the board to
  support its ruling.

17
What is competent, substantial evidence?

• Competent . . .
• That the individuals submitting the evidence are,
  by education, training or experience, competent
  to undertake the development of the evidence
  submitted.
• Substantial . . .
• The sufficient time and effort when into the
  development of the evidence that it may be relied
  upon by the decision maker(s).
• Evidence . . .
• That it be submitted on the record and
  challengeable by other interested parties.

18

• So . . .
• Some qualified individual would have to
• Study the traffic impact of the subject
  development and
• Determine whether that traffic would result in
  more than 2,000 vehicular trips at an unprotected
  elementary school crossing
• And then prepare a report containing the analysis
  and conclusion, which is
• Submitted for the record and be available for
  cross examination.

19
As Quasi-judicial . . .

• Ex parte communications are restricted
• Witnesses must be sworn
• Cross examination is permitted
• Commissioners are confined to the facts on the
  record in making their decisions.

20
Questions . . .

• Would rezonings that have an impact on a large
  number of persons or property owners, or . . .
• on unidentifiable parties and interests
• still be legislative?????????
• and

21

• Would some other land use decisions that also
  have an impact on a limited number of persons or
  property owners, on identifiable parties and
  interests
• Also be quasi-judicial?????
• Say, like plan amendments?

22

• See G. Penn, TRYING TO FIT AN ELEPHANT INTO A
  VOLKSWAGON SIX YEARS OF THE SNYDER DECISION IN
  FLORODA LAND USE LAW, Florida LR, 521, 2000,
  217-247.