Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/05/2012

Home

February 10, 2012 [ Volume 6 I No. 3 Zoning Bulletin Brodeur later filed a complaint in the circuit court against the County. She alleged that the CZAB's actions on the resolution after she left the meeting violated County Code % 33 -308 and that the approval of the ap- plication was therefore void. Both the Developer (who was allowed to intervene) and the County filed motions to dismiss Brodeur's complaint. They maintained that Bro- deur lacked standing to bring the action. In doing so, they relied on the "general rule that a public official lacks standing to challenge the rules and procedures applicable to his or her official acts." Brodeur maintained that an exception existed where, such as in this case, the public official is willing to perform his or her duties, "but is prevented from doing so by others." The circuit court agreed with the Developer and the County and dis- missed the complaint. Brodeur appealed. DECISION: Reversed, and matter remanded. The District Court of Appeal of Florida held that Brodeur "alleged a sufficient interest in vindicating the effectiveness of her vote to confer standing to bring the challenge." In so holding, the court acknowledged that Brodeur lacked a property interest in the subject matter (i.e., the Developer's application). However, the court also recognized that Brodeur was "entitled to seek review of actions which nullify her duly - exercised vote." The court looked at whether Brodeur alleged a sufficient interest on her part in vindicating "the effectiveness of her vote." The court found that she did given the facts that: (1) § 33 -308 specified that a tie vote triggered a carryover to the next meeting; and (2) the carryover to the next meeting and § 33 -308 were discussed by the staff and the CZAB chair before Brodeur left the meeting. The court found these facts "suf- ficient ... to establish Ms. Brodeur's standing to seek relief" from her claim that her vote was improperly nullified "a distinct 'injury in fact' resulting from the CZAB's actions taken in her absence." See also: Graham v. Swift, 480 So. 2d 124 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1985). See also: Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 59 S. Ct. 972, 83 E. Ed. 1385, 122 A.E.R. 695 (1939). Case Note: In August 2011, the County Commission amended Code S 33-308 so that the pertinent excerpt now provides: "Whenever a tie vote occurs and no other available motion on the application is 8 © 2012 Thomson Reuters