Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/15/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 15 unconstitutionally ambiguous either on its face or as applied to a particu- lar property owner. The Background/Facts: The Bennetts owned a beachfront triplex and adjacent lot known as "The Lawn" (the "Property") in south Walton County (the "County"). The Bennetts rented the Property many times each year for weddings, graduation parties, reunions, and other events. The Bennetts' Property was in a County -designated "Residential Preser- vation Area" district. After neighbors complained about the events held at the Property—including about 30 events in 2009 and more in 2010— the County cited the Bennetts multiple times for making "nonresidential use" of their Property in violation of the County's Land Development Code (the "LDC"). Section 2.01.03(L)(3)(a)(iii) of the LDC provided that "[n]on- residential uses are not allowed" on lots within the County -designated Residential Preservation Areas, such as the Bennetts' Property. The Bennetts sued the County. Among other things, they alleged that the LDC's prohibition on nonresidential uses was ambiguous both on its face and as applied to the Bennetts' Property so as to violate their constitutional substantive due process rights. Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute and deciding the matter on the law alone, the trial court issued summary judgment in favor of the County. The Bennetts appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Circuit Court affirmed. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, held that the LDC's nonresidential uses prohibition was not unconstitutionally ambiguous on its face or as applied to the Bennetts' Property. In so holding, the court explained that substantive due process chal- lenges, such as the Bennetts' challenge here, were examined by courts using "the rational basis test." Under that test, there would be no substan- tive. due process violation if the LDC's nonresidential uses prohibition was found to be related to a legitimate governmental purpose. Here, the court found that the County's restriction and enforcement challenged by the Bennetts related to specific zoning requirements that were intended to preserve designated residential areas. The Bennetts had not challenged the constitutionality of having that sort of zoning classification per se, but had challenged only that the LDC's parameter prohibiting "nonresidential uses" was too ambiguous to ever be constitutionally applied. The court explained that for the LDC's nonresidential uses prohibition to be unconstitutionally ambigu- ous on its face, the Bennetts had to establish that no set of circumstances existed under which the LDC provision would be valid. The court found there were contexts in which the nonresidential uses prohibition conveyed "a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when mea- © 2015 Thomson Reuters 7