Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/03/2006

Home

Page 2 - July 25, 2006 ZB. Ordinanc~ - Homeowners contest change in ordinance related to property use Claim county violated state law by changing ordinance during enactment Citation: Neumont v. State of Florida, 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 04-13610 (2006) The 11 th U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. FLORIDA (06/14/06) - In February 1997, Monroe County officials enacted a zoning ordinance that restricted certain properties in the Florida Keys from being used as short-term rentals. The county adhered to the Florida statute that allowed a county to enact zoning ordinances, which required the county to advertise and hold two public hearings on the proposed ordinance. DUring the county's fIrst public hearing, the Board of County Commissi?'l1- ers introduced and discussed a previously unavailable version of the ordi- nance, which "substantially added to the quantity of regulations and the diffi~ culty of meeting the Ordinance's regulatory burdens." At the second hearing, the board discussed a draft of the ordinance that was made available to the public three days before the meeting. The board also adopted previously unpublished changes to the draft ordinance before ultimately enacting the ordinance. Neumont and other property owners who were affected by the ordinance sued the county, claiming that me ordinance was amend:.~ improperly during ( its enactment in violation of the state statute and should be rendered void. The property owners further argued that the ordinance deprived them of due pro- cess and took their property without just compensation. The court found in favor of the county without a trial, and the property owners appealed. DECISION: Referred to Florida Supreme Court for review. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. could not fInd a precedent as to the correct application of state law in this case. The central issue was whether the changes made during the enactment process were "substantial and material" -in which case the county was required to begin the process over. The property owners argued that a substantial and material change in- cluded any change that altered the list of permitted, cl;mditional, or prohibited uses. The county argued that only a change that altered the original intention of the ordinance should constitute a change significant enough to require it to renew the enactment process. The 11th Circuit certifIed the issue to the Florida Supreme Court, asking that court to determine if the property owners or the county's definition of substantial and material change was correct. In doing so, the 11th Circuit noted that it did not restrict the state court's consideration of the issues presented. see also: Southern Entertainment Co. v. Boynton Beach, 736 F.Supp. 1094 (1990). 94 @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.