Petition
for Writ of Certiorari to Review Quasi-Judicial Action: Agencies, Boards, and
Commissions of Local Government: ZONING – Procedural Due Process – Riparian
Rights – Petitioner was not denied due process by the City’s decision not to
hold a public hearing in granting Petitioner’s neighbor a permit to build a
dock – Administrative approval was all that was required by the County’s Code
for dock permit – no record evidence that dock failed to meet Code criteria –
Petitioner was not entitled to an unobstructed view of Mandalay Channel, west
of Petitioner’s property – Petition denied. Fernandez
v. Board of
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND
APPELLATE DIVISION
JOHN D. FERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
vs. Appeal No. 05-0042AP-88A
UCN522005AP000042XXXXCV
BOARD OF
OF
Respondent.
________________________________________________/
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, the Response and the Reply. Upon consideration of the same and being otherwise fully advised, the Court finds that the Petition must be denied as set forth below.
The Petitioner, John D. Fernandez (Fernandez), seeks review of the Order, entered May 9, 2005, in which the Respondent, Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, acting as the governing authority of the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority (Board),
denied Fernandez’s Petition for
Rehearing which sought to have a private dock permit issued to his neighbor,
Robert Buck, set aside. The standard of
review of administrative action is whether the petitioner was afforded
procedural due process, whether the essential requirements of law were
observed, and whether the administrative findings and judgment are supported by
competent substantial evidence. See
Haines City Community Development v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 530 (
The record shows that on January 15, 2005, Robert Buck, of 210 Palm Island S.W., Clearwater, applied for a dock permit to construct a 13,000 pound cradle lift and a personal watercraft boat lift to an existing 248 square foot dock. On January 26, 2005, Fernandez, who lives next to Mr. Buck at 216 Palm Island S.W., filed his objection to the dock application arguing that the proposed boat lift would unlawfully obstruct his view of Mandalay Channel. The dock permit application was administratively approved on February 4, 2005. On March 3, 2005, Fernandez filed his Petition for Rehearing on Authority’s Intention to Issue Permit. In response to Fernandez’s Petition for Rehearing, the Managing Assistant County Attorney prepared a memorandum setting forth her analysis of the issues and her recommendation to deny the Petition. A staff member from the Environmental Management Department also prepared a detailed summary and analysis recommending that the Board deny a request for a public hearing in response to the Petition. On May 9, 2005, the Board denied the Petition for Rehearing, without holding a public hearing, from which Fernandez filed his Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
Before
this Court, Fernandez argues that he was denied due process as the Board denied
his Petition for Rehearing without holding a public hearing and, further, that
the issuance of the permit unlawfully violates his riparian right to an
unobstructed view. In addressing the due
process argument, the Florida Supreme Court has held that due process requires
both notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a
meaningful manner. See Keys
Citizens for Responsible Government, Inc. v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority,
795 So.2d 940, 948 (
In
this particular proceeding, the dock permit could be administratively approved
by the Director of the Department of Environmental Management without holding a
public hearing since the proposed dock did not exceed 500 square feet and no
variance was needed. See Code
Sec. 166-286(2)a. There is no record
evidence to show that the Board failed to follow the Code. Rather, Fernandez was provided notice of the
dock permit application and timely filed his Petition for Rehearing after the
permit was administratively approved.
The Board considered the Petition, along with the
The
Court also finds that there is competent substantial evidence to support the
approval of the dock permit. See Department
of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Trimble, 821 So.2d 1084, 1087 (
It is therefore,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is hereby denied.
DONE
AND ORDERED in Chambers, at
_______________________________
JOHN A. SCHAEFER
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division
_______________________________ ______________________________
LAUREN LAUGHLIN JAMES CASE
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division Circuit Judge,
Appellate Division
Copies furnished to:
John D. Fernandez
Jewel White Cole, Esquire
Managing
315 Court Street