fairly debatable rule in Florida

2022In opposing the quasi-judicial hearing, the city relied on Martin County v. Yusem, 690 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1997), which held that “all comprehensive plan amendments are legislative decisions subject to the fairly debatable standard of review.” Id. at 1295 .

2022In opposing the quasi-judicial hearing, the city relied on Martin County v. Yusem, 690 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1997), which held that “all comprehensive plan amendments are legislative decisions subject to the fairly debatable standard of review.” Id. at 1295 .

2010"The fairly debatable rule has its basis in the deference that the judicial power owes the legislative function under *633 the separation of powers doctrine inherent in our form of government and expressly embodied in our state and federal constitutions." Albright v. Hensley, 492 So.2d 852, 856 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (Cowart, J., dissenting).

2010“The fairly debatable rule has its basis in the deference that the judicial power owes the legislative function under the separation of powers doctrine inherent in our form of government and expressly embodied in our state and federal constitutions.” Albright v. Hensley, 492 So.2d 852, 856 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (Cowart, J., dissenting).

2010Id.; see also Coastal Dev., 788 So.2d at 206 (applying the fairly debatable standard of review to small scale development amendments).

2010Yusem, 690 So.2d at 1295 (citations and initial quotation marks removed); Coastal Dev., 788 So.2d at 205 n. 1 (applying the fairly debatable standard to section 163. 3187(1)(c) small scale FLUM amendments). .

1967See City of Miami Beach v. Lachman, Fla. 1954, 71 So.2d 148, 152 ; Town of Surfside v. Abelson, Fla.App. 1958, 106 So.2d 108 ." The fairly debatable rule appears to be particularly applicable here because, as pointed out in Dade County v. Epstein, supra, under the Metro Code provisions relating to applications for district boundary changes, the action of the Zoning Board on such an application is not a decision appealable to the Commission, but is only a recommendation.

1966The origin of the fairly debatable rule is discussed in City of Miami Beach v. Lachman, Fla.1953, 71 So.2d 148 .

2017See Martin County v. Section 28 P'ship, Ltd., 772 So. 2d 616, 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (explaining that there is a "close relationship between the fairly debatable standard and the review of substantive due process claims" (citing Martin County v. Section 28 P'ship, Ltd., 676 So. 2d 532, 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996))).

2000Recognizing the close relationship between the fairly debatable standard and the review of substantive due process claims, we stated: Turning to the Partnership's substantive due process argument, we find that the issues concerning these claims and Martin County's refusal to amend its comprehensive plan and the consequent denial of the development application are inextricably intertwined. 676 So.2d at 537 (emphasis added).

1969See City of Miami Beach v. Wiesen, supra, where the court stated: "If the fairly debatable rule is a sound one, and we have so held, there is no situation in the field of zoning in which it is more applicable than that involving the decision of where the dividing line between use districts should be * * *." Finally, the trial court found that the highest and best use of the plaintiff's property was for neighborhood retail business.

1969In City of Miami Beach v. Weiss the Florida Supreme Court said: "On the merits of the controversy, the record here conclusively establishes that the zoning of the lands under consideration is palpably arbitrary and unreasonable and has no reasonably debatable relation *374 to the public health, safety or general welfare, and that it should be rezoned * * *." Another good statement of the fairly debatable rule is found in City of Miami Beach v. Wiesen, supra. There the court at page 445 clearly expressed the policy to be followed in reviewing zoning ordinances: "Recognizing the fundamental prem

1984The fairly debatable rule applies to the application of the ordinance and does not modify the requirement that the ordi nance itself and the application thereof must have a reasonable relationship to the health, safety, morals or general welfare. 318 So.2d at 217 (emphasis supplied).

1979The fairly debatable rule applies to the application of the ordinance and does not modify the requirement that the ordinance itself and the application thereof must have a reasonable relationship to the health, safety, morals or general welfare." Davis v. Sails, 318 So.2d 214, at 217 .

1979See, e.g., Miles v. Dade County, 260 So.2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); and Hall v. Korth, 244 So.2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).

1977Miles v. Dade County Board of County Commissioners, 260 So.2d 553 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1972); Metropolitan Dade County v. Crowe, 296 So.2d 532 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1974); Metropolitan Dade County v. Fletcher, 311 So.2d 738 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1975); Marca, S.A. v. Dade County, 332 So.2d 142 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1976).

2017See Martin County v. Section 28 P'ship, Ltd., 772 So. 2d 616, 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (explaining that there is a "close relationship between the fairly debatable standard and the review of substantive due process claims" (citing Martin County v. Section 28 P'ship, Ltd., 676 So. 2d 532, 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996))).

2017See Martin County v. Section 28 P'ship, Ltd., 772 So. 2d 616, 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (explaining that there is a "close relationship between the fairly debatable standard and the review of substantive due process claims" (citing Martin County v. Section 28 P'ship, Ltd., 676 So. 2d 532, 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996))).

2000Id. at 1295 (citing B & H Travel Corp. v. State Dep't of Community Affairs, 602 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)).

1997See B & H Travel Corp. v. State Dep't of Community Affairs, 602 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

2000This decision is in compliance with the Florida Supreme Court in Nance v. Town of Indialantic, 419 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 1982) (holding the fairly debatable test should be used to review legislative-type zoning enactments, while a variance seeker must demonstrate a unique hardship in order to qualify for a variance), and Board of County Commissioners v. Snyder, 627 So.2d 469 (Fla.1993) (holding comprehensive rezonings affecting a large portion of the public are legislative in nature and are subject to fairly debatable standard of review).

1995The result of this judicial laissez-faire approach, according to Snyder, was that "[i]nhibited only by the loose judicial scrutiny afforded by the fairly debatable rule, local zoning systems developed in a markedly inconsistent manner." Id.

1996Section 28 Partnership, Ltd. v. Martin County, 642 So.2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), rev. denied, 654 So.2d 920 (Fla.1995) (hereinafter referred to as “Section 28 Partnership I”).

1996Id. at 612 .

2017"This court reviews the trial court's application of the fairly debatable standard de novo." Island, 884 So. 2d at 108 .

2017Holding that the trial court erred in finding that the City's denial was fairly debatable, this court explained that "[r]easonable persons could not differ in concluding that the [developers] were entitled to a small-scale amendment to the comprehensive plan because their property was improperly designated preservation." Id. (emphasis added). "[R]ecognizing the stringent requirements of the fairly debatable rule," Judge Villanti specified that he concurred with the majority because "[a]bsolutely all of the expert opinion and supporting data was unrefuted; i.e., that the preservation classifica

2001See id. at 1265 .

2000In our recent opinion in Gardens Country Club, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 712 So.2d 398, 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), we *620 discussed how substantive due process claims are evaluated: Substantive due process challenges are analyzed under the rational basis test; that is, a legislative act of the government will not be considered arbitrary and capricious if it has "a rational relationship with a legitimate general welfare concern." Restigouche, Inc. v. Town Of Jupiter, 59 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir.1995)(quoting Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 997 F.2d 1369, 1388 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S

2000In our recent opinion in Gardens Country Club, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 712 So.2d 398, 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), we *620 discussed how substantive due process claims are evaluated: Substantive due process challenges are analyzed under the rational basis test; that is, a legislative act of the government will not be considered arbitrary and capricious if it has "a rational relationship with a legitimate general welfare concern." Restigouche, Inc. v. Town Of Jupiter, 59 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir.1995)(quoting Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 997 F.2d 1369, 1388 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S

2000See City of Renton, 475 U.S. 41 , 106 S.Ct. 925 , 89 L.Ed.2d 29 ; International Eateries of Am., Inc. v. Broward County, 941 F.2d 1157 (11th Cir.1991).

2000See City of Renton, 475 U.S. 41 , 106 S.Ct. 925 , 89 L.Ed.2d 29 ; International Eateries of Am., Inc. v. Broward County, 941 F.2d 1157 (11th Cir.1991).