Fully unfavorable decision rendered against the Village of Palmetto Bay by the court in FAIRCHILD BAY SUBDIVISION LLC VS VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, 2023-000033-AP-01

This decision hurts. You can’t spin it, though I am sure they will try. I am putting out the opinion rendered yesterday, Tuesday, September 10, 2024, in the case of FAIRCHILD BAY SUBDIVISION LLC VS VILLAGE OFPALMETTO BAY, 2023-000033-AP-01

The Court: the decision to deny Appellant’s zoning reclassification was arbitrary, unreasonable and confiscatory.

Wait for the projected village spin.  This hearing process was not a valiant attempt to protect the village – it is a model of how not to conduct a hearing or make a (bad) decision – I based this upon the stated opinion of the Judges – including 

“… (Palmetto Bay) failed to follow the essential requirements of the law, rendered a decision wholly unsupported by competent substantial evidence and subjected Petitioner to reverse spot zoning that resulted in a confiscatory taking of its real property.”

Ouch

What was lost here was any opportunity to actually protect the neighbors through attempting to reach a reasonable compromise. Any compromise could have included covenants and other ways to protect the community in the future.  Of course, it is too hard for this current group to make a decision based upon the evidence and properly apply the law. That takes skill as an elected official (that they lack) as well as political guts.  It is much easier for this group to play to the Plebiscite and then blame the courts (or others before them) when their poor decision(s) hits the fan.

The court cited staff reports and testimony where the applicants could not meet the requirements of the zoning code under the current designation (see page 16 of the opinion) (which is why they were seek a change – to be compatible with the surrounding areas).

As detailed in the opinion, 

“A thorough review of the record fails to establish substantial compete evidence to support the Village’s decision. The Respondent (Palmetto Bay) fails to identify any specific material and relevant statements from the public hearing that constitute substantial compete evidence. The evidence primarily addressed the Property’s ownership history, the potential loss of mango trees and Petitioner’s site plan for the future development of the Property...."

By the way, the application was filed February 23, 2023 (see foot note 1 on page 2 of the decision). This means this entire action falls upon the Elected Officials elected in 2000 and 2022. This was based upon the municipal code put in place by that (current) group of elected officials.

This was not an error in the defense of this certiorari action, this is an error that started before the zoning hearing.  The errors occurred in how the elected officials failed to properly manage the zoning matter; in essence – well, as the opinion stated:

“(Palmetto Bay) failed to follow the essential requirements of the law, rendered a decision wholly unsupported by competent substantial evidence rind subjected Petitioner to reverse spot zoning that resulted in a confiscatory taking of its real property.”

The lesson is that if you deny, the mayor and village council better have some evidence to base their denial on.  They didn’t. The lost and now the village residents will pay the price for their foolishness.

This is a long opinion, designed (in my opinion) to provide guidance in order to prevent future errors.

The closing paragraph is the concurring opinion fairly sums this up:

For the reasons stated in the majority opinion, the decision to deny Appellant’s zoning reclassification was arbitrary, unreasonable and confiscatory. Kugel, 206 So. 2d at 285 (finding denial of a rezoning request unreasonable and arbitrary where “[t]he character of the property has already been changed by other actions of the municipality.”). Accordingly, I would grant the Writ of Certiorari because Respondent failed to follow the essential requirements of the law, rendered a decision wholly unsupported by competent substantial evidence and subjected Petitioner to reverse spot zoning that resulted in a confiscatory taking of its real property.

More to come at some future date. For now, I will wait for any village spin.  No matter how you spin it, this decision does NOT reflect well upon the officials of the Village of Palmetto Bay.

And note, this decision is "not final" until any motion for rehearing is disposed of, but I doubt very seriously the decision will be reversed upon any request for reconsideration.