Petition
for Writ of Certiorari to Review Quasi-Judicial Action: Agencies, Boards, and
Commissions of Local Government: ZONING
– Site Plan Application – testimony of neighbors – as site plan
application met all Code criteria, burden shifted to the City to demonstrate
that the application did not meet Code standards and was adverse to the public
interest – City departed from essential requirements of law in denying
application solely upon neighbors’ concerns about increase in traffic and need
for traffic signal - three experts testified that traffic signal was not needed
– City could not rely on lay opinion of neighbors on matter that required
technical expertise – Petition granted. Bay
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND
APPELLATE DIVISION
BAY
a
Petitioner,
vs. Appeal No.06-0022AP-88B
UCN522006AP000022XXXXCV
CITY OF
a
Respondent.
__________________________________________/
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, the Response and the Reply. Upon consideration of the briefs, the record and being otherwise fully advised, the Court finds that the Petition must be granted as set forth below.
The Petitioner,
The
record shows that
On November 3, 2005,
Bay Arbor also submitted an in-depth
transportation analysis, dated October 28, 2005. The report stated that, from a level of
service perspective, a traffic light at the intersection of
On January 11, 2006, the City’s Planning and
Redevelopment Director issued a Staff Report recommending approval of the site
plan contingent upon an updated traffic study being conducted within the first
six months of operation of
The City Council also heard from several
neighboring residents about excessive traffic on
On February 21, 2006,
the City Council reconvened to consider the site plan application. The City Council again acknowledged that the
site plan met all applicable Code criteria.
The City Council heard expert testimony from Mr. Trommel, as well as
testimony from Anthony Shaumont, from the FDOT, and Gary Thompson, the district
traffic engineer. Mr. Trommell testified
that he concurred with the City’s staff that the site plan’s provision for a
vehicular access point on
The City Council also considered the testimony from fourteen surrounding residents about the present traffic situation and how the proposed development would exacerbate a dangerous traffic situation. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council denied the site plan application. Before this Court, Bay Arbor argues that the City Council departed from the essential requirements of law and that its decision is not supported by competent substantial evidence because it denied its site plan application based on the lay opinion of neighbors regarding traffic safety.
The Court reiterates that its review
is limited to whether the essential requirements of law were observed and
whether the Board’s decision is supported by competent substantial
evidence. See Haines
City Community Development v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 530 (
In evaluating the last prong of
review, competent substantial evidence has been described as evidence that is
“sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept it as
adequate to support the conclusion reached.”
See Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Trimble,
821 So.2d 1084, 1087 (
The issue before this court is not whether the agency’s decision is the “best” decision or the “right” decision or even a “wise” decision, for these are technical and policy-based determinations properly within the purview of the agency. The circuit court has no training or experience – and is inherently unsuited – to sit as a roving “super agency” with plenary oversight of such matters.
As a preliminary
matter, the City’s Motion to Strike, filed July 31, 2006, is denied. The Court previously ruled that documents
generated as part of Bay Arbor’s application and developed during the
proceedings below would be considered by this Court. Further, there is no requirement that Bay
Arbor provide an entire transcript of the hearings as suggested by the
City. However, this is a moot point
since Bay Arbor filed, on August 25, 2006, complete certified transcripts of
the hearings. There was not a written
order entered by the City Council. While
written findings of fact and an order are preferred, they are not required for
certiorari review. See Board of
The
Court finds that the City Council’s decision must be quashed. There is no dispute that Bay Arbor’s site
plan application complied with all applicable Code criteria. Since Bay Arbor met its initial burden of
showing that the site plan met all criteria, the burden then shifted to the
City to demonstrate, by competent substantial evidence, that the application
did not meet Code standards and was adverse to the public interest.
In this case, the
transcripts clearly show that the City Council denied the site plan based on the
neighbors’ traffic concerns. However,
this is not competent substantial evidence to support the City Council’s
decision. All three experts, including
the City’s expert, concluded that a traffic signal was not warranted and could
even make the traffic situation worse.
While it is clear that the City Council could consider the opinions of
the neighbors as to the current traffic conditions, the City Council improperly
relied on the neighbors’ insistence that a traffic light be installed at the
intersection of
The best manner in which to direct traffic from a safety standpoint requires technical expertise, something the City obviously found important since it hired its own traffic engineer to provide an analysis. Several additional development conditions were imposed upon Bay Arbor in the second Staff Report, designed to improve ingress and egress in that area without installing a traffic signal. Ironically, as demonstrated by the expert testimony, the neighbors’ desire to have a traffic light installed at the subject intersection is more likely to be fulfilled if the site plan is approved since the actual traffic patterns post-development could then be ascertained. Indeed, the developer does not object to having FDOT install a traffic light even though the expert testimony indicated that this was not the best option.
The Court further finds that the
facts of this case are unlike like those in Board of County Commissioners of
Pinellas County v. City of Clearwater, 440 So.2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), cited
by the City in support of its argument that lay testimony, by itself, can
support the denial of a site application.
In Board of County Commissioners, the applicable rules and
regulations specifically provided that the governing authority had the right to
deny a construction permit if it determined that such construction would
“adversely affect the natural beauty and recreational advantages of the
county.” There are no comparable rules
and regulations, or code criteria, applicable in the case at bar, nor does this
case involve ethereal factual matters, but rather the installation of a traffic
signal.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the City Council departed from the essential requirements of law in denying the site plan application based solely on the neighbors’ traffic concerns and insistence that a traffic light be installed and, hence, its decision is not supported by competent substantial evidence. See Haines, 658 So.2d at 527. The City failed to demonstrate that the application did not meet its Code requirements and was adverse to the public interest. See G.B.V. International, LTD, supra. In reaching this conclusion, the Court finds that input from neighbors in such proceedings is extremely valuable and important in making development decisions. However, under the facts of this case, the City could not rely solely on the neighbors’ lay opinions on a matter that required technical expertise, particularly when the neighbors did not object to the development project as a whole and neither the City nor the developer had control over the installation of a traffic light.
Therefore, it is,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is granted and the City Council’s decision to deny the site plan application is quashed.
DONE
AND ORDERED in Chambers, at
_________________________________
DAVID
A. DEMERS
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division
_______________________________ ______________________________
PETER RAMSBERGER ANTHONY RONDOLINO
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division Circuit Judge, Appellate Division
Copies furnished to:
Darryl R. Richards, Esquire
Jerry Beverland, Mayor
Thomas J. Trask, Esquire