The Fairchild Subdivision Order is now final - no motion for rehearing was timely filed. My opinion as to what it means for the Village. This order reflects poorly on the Village.

“… (Palmetto Bay elected officials) 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.”

This is not an order that makes Village residents proud. It is a very strong indictment of a poorly run hearing. Or, in my opinion, so ruled the three judge panel of the Appellate Division of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit on September 10, 2024, in the case of FAIRCHILD BAY SUBDIVISION LLC VS VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, 2023-000033-AP-01

The  ruling of the Court was accepted by the village officials without contest when they decided not to contest it by filing a motion for rehearing or clarification. The mandate has been issued (pictured right). This is good for the taxpayers, but bad for the village’s reputation. Perhaps village legal council advised the mayor and council that they had no chance and to finally quit wasting taxpayer dollars on useless litigation. The Village taxpayers should thank whoever convinced this council to accept the ruling of the court, drop the foolishness and, most importantly, not waste more time and village tax dollars in this matter. This matter will come back before the Village Council for a redo - consistent with the Order.

WHAT WAS AT ISSUE?: The issue for the zoning hearing was simple – the Property is designated as “low density residential” on the Village comp plan. The property is currently zoned agricultural. This property is located at 9000 SW 174 Street – firmly ensconced on a low density residential area.  It is a small property, too small for the agricultural designation and, in fact, this property is NOT an active agricultural use – it is currently a single home, one of the last pieces of property that once made up a vibrant mango grove (this ended long before Palmetto Bay was even an idea).  This was not an application for high density apartments. To the contrary – the applicant sought to built homes at one dwelling (single family home) per 15,000 net feet of land (same as surrounding homes).

I had posted about this recent order back on September 11, 2024 – See PRIOR RELATED POST - 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. As I stated then, This decision hurts. You can’t spin it, though I am sure they will try. I was wrong. Even the village team of spin doctors did not want to try and touch this one. Instead they hope you don’t notice.

The order is now final. So what is the damage?  Here are the findings of the court that are now accepted:

The most outrageous statement comes from Mayor Cunningham – this opinion singles her out for opposing the rezoning because there is “nothing really that requires us to change the zoning.” (top of page 5 of the opinion) Wrong! This statement was featured as part of how the court determined that she, as part of the entire council, failed to follow the essential requirements of law. (The mayor and council also failed to follow the Staff recommendation as well as the recommendations of the Village Attorney). Yes, despite that fact that she has been on the counsel since 2015, she has yet to figure out the Code or her responsibilities of actually following the Code or the law. Some may say, don’t blame her, she’s not an attorney.  But two members of the Village Council do have law degrees, and even though neither practice law, both also were also outed by the court for failing to follow the Village Code as well as the essential requirements of law. Further, these two council members failed the community by not engaging any legal common sense and by not directing the mayor to focus on the facts of the application and to properly apply the Village Code and the Law. This is part of a never ending pattern of ignoring the law – see December 13, 2023, Court slaps down Palmetto Bay's zoning appeal -- more units for Old Cutler Road

The Court was strong in the language. See page 11-12 of the Fairchild order, where the court discussed how wrong she/they is/are on their failure to follow the law. The Court reviewed Palmetto Bay’s Code of Ordinances (which the mayor had significant input on crafting) – section 30-30.7 in this case where the Process and Criteria for review are enumerated. The court noted how none – NONE – of the council members [including the mayor – questioned the applicant on any of the enumerated criteria (bottom of page 13 of the order)], but instead focused on irrelevant issues.  The court determined that the mayor and council – they all - failed to follow the essential requirements of law.

The Village really cannot recover from this opinion (along with the beat down received in the Palmetto Bay Village Center cases).  But the voters can replace two of the offending council members next month and bring fresh perspective along with people who will properly follow the Village’s Codes and Law. 

As detailed on page 17 of the order, the judges determined that they were “constrained to find that the Council unjustifiably applied their own unenumerated criteria in denying (the applicant’s} rezoning application, In so doing, the Council Also disregarded the Village’s Comprehensive Plan ….” [legalese for the court finding that the Mayor and Council made up their own rules that were inconsistent (contrary to) the law].

Accordingly, the Village failed to follow the essential requirements of law.  (page 17 of the order, bold emphasis added)

The Village Officials are accepting their failures while hoping that no one will notice. (Obviously because it is not election time).

Take notice voters! Zoning is an essential function of the Village Council. Their continued failures cost you in higher taxes and bad zoning decisions.