vs. Appeal No. 01-8630-CI-88A
CITY OF ST. PETE BEACH,
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Petitioner’s Memorandum in Support of Petition to Amend Petition for Certiorari and the Respondent’s Response thereto. Upon consideration of the memorandums, the record and being otherwise fully advised, the Court finds that the Amended Petition for Certiorari raises issues beyond this Court’s appellate jurisdiction and that the issues raised in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari are now moot.
The underlying facts are that the Petitioner was granted a variance for construction of a dock subject to various conditions, including that “no boat lifts, davits or any other structures or amenities be allowed above the dock deck to allow for unobstructed views” and “that there shall be no permanent (in excess of 48 hours) mooring of boats.” This decision, rendered by the Respondent on May 31, 2001, was not appealed. Thereafter, the Petitioner was granted a dock permit and a dock was constructed. On August 13, 2001, the Petitioner was issued a Notice of Violation for “installing eight 4-foot high posts on dock structure as to obstruct the views of the neighboring properties.” Petitioner appealed the Notice of Violation to the Respondent’s Development Review Board (Board) and also sought review of the 48-hour mooring condition. After a hearing, the Board upheld the Notice of Violation and declined to review the 48-hour mooring condition.
In her Petition for Writ of Certiorari, the Petitioner argued that the Respondent erred in upholding the Building Official’s interpretation that the structural dock poles are considered “other structures” or amenities above the dock that would obstruct the waterfront view, in violation of a variance condition. However, this issue became moot when the Respondent dismissed its Notice of Violation, on or about January 24, 2002. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed her Amended Petition for Writ of Certiorari, arguing that the 48-hour mooring condition departs from the essential requirements of law and that there is not competent substantial evidence to support it. The Petitioner also asserts that the Respondent erred in not interpreting the 48-hour mooring condition.
The Court finds that the Petitioner, who has been represented by counsel from the initial dock variance request, is essentially attempting to get a second bite of the apple on this issue. It is clear from the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and from the Respondent’s own Code, that certiorari appeals to the circuit court from final administrative decisions are required to be filed within thirty days of the rendition of the decision to be reviewed. See Fla. R. App. P. Rule 9.100(c)(1)(2002); see also City of St. Pete Beach Code, § 134-201. The Petitioner is well beyond the 30-day filing requirement, as the Respondent rendered its final decision on the 48-hour mooring condition on May 31, 2001. Accordingly, the Court is without jurisdiction to review the merits of the Amended Petition for Writ of Certiorari. See id.; see also Harris v. Conderman, 113 So.2d 235, 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)(citations omitted); Thermoplastic & Signs, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 746 So.2d 1140, 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
Therefore, it is,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Order Granting Motion to File Brief as Amicus Curiae and Order Granting Motion to Amend Petition for Certiorari, entered March 8, 2002, is hereby vacated and the Motion to Amend Petition for Certiorari is denied.
It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed November 15, 2001, is hereby dismissed, as the issues raised therein are now moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida this 28th day of May 2002.
NANCY MOATE LEY
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division
Copies Furnished To:
669 First Avenue North
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
7243 Bryan Diary Road
Largo, FL 33777
A. Bacon, Esquire
2959 First Avenue North
St. Petersburg, FL 33713