The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.
Elizabeth J. Neumont v. State of Florida, Monroe County
SC06-1204
THE NEXT CASE WE WILL
DISCUSS WILL BE PRESENTED
NEUMONT v. STATE OF FLORIDA,
MONROE COUNTY.
>> GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR,
ERIC GRANT FOR THE
PLAINTIFF'S APPELTS.
>> MR. GRANT YOUR FIRST
APPEARANCE IN THE FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT IS IN.
>> YES, YOUR HONOR.
>> WELCOME TO THE COURT AND
I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING
YOU.
>> THE 11th CIRCUIT HAS
ASKED THIS COURT TO
DETERMINE WHAT IS A
SUBSTANTIAL OR MATERIAL
CHANGE IN A PROPOSED
ORDINANCE DURING THE
ENACTMENT PROCESS, THAT IS,
THE KIND OF CHANGE THAT
WOULD REQUIRE A COUNTY TO
START THE PROCESS OVER.
PLAINTIFF SUBMIT THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS ANSWERED
THIS QUESTION IN THE TEXT OF
FLORIDA STATUTE, SECTION
125.66.
WHICH IMPOSES HEIGHTENED
NOTICE AND MEETING
REQUIREMENTS WHENEVER A
COUNTY PROPOSES TO CHANGE,
QUOTE, THE ACTUAL LIST OF
PERMITTED CONDITIONAL OR
PROHIBITED USES WITHIN A
ZONING CATEGORY, UNQUOTE.
A LONG TIME EQUIVALENCE IN
FLORIDA JURISPRUDENCE
BETWEEN THE< CIRCUMSTANCES IN
WHICH THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE
CONSIDERED AND THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE
ENACTMENT PROCESS MUST BEGIN
ANEW COMPELS THE CONCLUSION
THAT A LEGISLATIVE CHANGE IS
SUBSTANTIAL OR MATERIAL IF
IT ALTHERS ACTUAL LIST OF
PROPOSED CONDITIONAL OR
PROHIBITED USES WITHIN --
>> NOW THE STATUTE DOESN'T
REQUIRE THAT THE NOTICE
IDENTIFY THE ACTUAL CHANGES.
CORRECT, IT'S ONLY THE TITLE
SO LET'S SAY YOU HAVE 20
DIFFERENT CHANGES TO, TO THE
ORDINANCE, REGARDING
CHANGING SOMETHING FROM
PERMITTED TO CONDITIONAL AND
THEN AFTER A HEARING,IOSAY
WELL WE'RE ONLY GOING TO
MAKE 90 OF THOSE CHANGES.
WE'RE GOING TO DELETE ONE.
THEY SEND THE SAME NOTICE.
THE NOTICE DOESN'T INFORM
ANYBODY ABOUT THE CHANGE.
ALL -- IT'S JUST GOING TO
HAVE THE TITLE.
SO NOBODY IS GOING TO KNOW
WHEN THEY SEE THAT NOTICE
WHAT THE CHANGES ARE, WHAT
THE PROPOSALS ARE.
THEY'RE JUST GOING TO THINK
IT'S THE SAME THING THAT
THEY, THEY PUBLICIZED
BEFORE.
SO WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF
REQUIRING AFTER EVERY SMALL
CHANGE GO BACK AND ALL YOU
ARE DOING IS LISTING THE
SAME TITLE IN THE NOTICE.
>> YOUR HONOR, YOUR PURPOSE
IS, AS THIS COURT HAS
EMPHASIZES AND AS THE
LEGISLATURE HAS PUT INTO THE
TEXT OF THE STATUTE TO
FOSTER CITIZEN
PARTICIPATION, TO FOSTER
DELIBERATION IN THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, AND I
THINK WHAT, WHAT WE'RE
LOOKING AT IS A SITUATION
WHERE WHERE CITIZENS GET
NOTES AND THEY PARTICIPATE
IN A FIRST HEARING.
AND THEY, THEY REALIZE THAT
SOMETHING HAS BEEN PROPOSED
TO TO BE MADE PERMISSIBLE OR
TO BE MADE PROHIBITED.
AND THAT'S THEIR EXPECTATION,
THAT'S WHAT THE COMMUNITY
UNDERSTANDICIZE BEING ACTED
UPON, AND IF THAT CHANGES,
WHAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS
SAID, IS THERE NEEDS TO BE
THIS ADDITIONAL DELIBERATION.
>> WELL, LET'S LOOK IN THIS
CASE.
THE ORDINANCE TITLE
PUBLICIZED INCLUDING
VACATION RENTALS IN ALL LAND
USE DISTRICTS.
RIGHT?
>> I BELIEVE THE FIRST
NOTICE DID NOT SAY LAND USE
DISTRICTS.
THE FIRST NOTICE REFERRED TO
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
IT WAS ONLY THE SECOND
NOTICE.
THAT REFERRED TO ALL LAND
USE DISTRICTS.
>> AFTER THE FIRST HEARING,
THEY DECIDED TO MAKE SOME
CHANGES.
HOW IS THE PUBLIC GOING TO
BE NOTIFIED OF THOSE
SPECIFIC CHANGES?
>> THE NOTICE WILL NOT
NOTIFY THF THEM OF THOSE
SPECIFIC CHANGES BUT THE
IDEA IS THAT THE CITIZEN WHO
IS PARTICIPATING IN, IN THE
HEARINGS WILL, WILL KNOW
THAT THERE CHANGES AND THE
ADDITIONAL POINT IS THERE
WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL
HEARING.
THERE WILL BE MORE
DELIBERATION.
>> DO YOU AGREE THAT ONE OF
THE PURPOSES OF THE HEARING
IS TO GET INPUT FROM THE
COMMUNITY.
>> ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR.
>> AND AFTER THAT INPUT,
THEY NECESSARILY COULD MAKE
CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE TO
ADDRESS THAT INPUT?
>> THEY CERTAINLY MAY MAKE
--
>> SO ACCORDING TO YOU,
EVERY TIME THAT THEY ADDRESS
THE COMMUNITY'S CONCERNS BY
MAKING A CHANGE, THEN THEY
HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE
PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN, AND
IT MAY NEVER END BECAUSE AS
YOU GET MORE AND MORE INPUT,
YOU MAY DECIDE TO MAKE MORE
CHANGES.
SO EITHER IT'S GOING TO
STIFLE ANY CHANGE TO AN
ORDINANCE AND MAKE IT
WRITTEN IN STONE ONCE IT'S
PROPOSED OR YOU'RE NEVER
GOING TO GET AN ORDINANCE
PASSED.
>> YOUR HONOR, IT'S NOT --
PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSAL, IT'S
BEEN THE LAW OF FLORIDA FOR
40 YEARS THAT A SUBSTANTIAL
OR MATERIAL CHANGE THAT
OCCURS DURING THE ENACTMENT
PROCESS REQUIRES A
RESTARTING OF THE PROCESS.
>> BUT ISN'T THAT WHAT WE'RE
HERE ON IS TO DECIDE WHAT
THE LEGISLATURE MEANT,
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION ON
SUBSTANTIAL AND MATERIAL
CHANGE.
NOT THAT THE SAME CONCERN
THAT JUSTICE CONTARA HAS
WHICH IS THAT IF THE NOTICE
ONLY HAS TO BE NOTICE OF THE
TITLE, AND THE TITLE DOESN'T
CHANGE BECAUSE OF A, THE
AMENDMENT PROCESS, THEN IT
IS REALLY, IT SEEMS TO BE
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE AND
THEREFORE IN LOOKING AT WHAT
THE LEGISLATURE MEANT BY
SUBSTANTIAL AND MATERIAL
CHANGE, WHITE ISN'T IT
BETTER TO INTERPRET THAT
PHRASE AS MEANING IF THERE
IS A SUBSTANTIAL AND
MATERIAL CHANGE IF THE
PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE THAT
WOULD REQUIRE A CHANGE IN
THE TITLE, THAT'S WHAT THAT
MEANT.
AND THAT TO ME MEANS --
BRINGS SANITY TO WHAT WOULD
OTHERWISE BE A PROCESS THAT
I THINK WOULD HAVE THE EXACT
EFFECT JUSTICE CANTERA IS
SAYING.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE DOING.
SO IF THE LEGISLATURE WAS
SET IN STONE AND WASN'T
CLEAR, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE,
CORRECT.
SO WE ARE LOOKING AT THAT
TERM.
ISN'T THERE A BETTER WAY TO
INTERPRET THE TERM AND THAT
THERE IS A ONLY A
REQUIREMENT OF RENOTIFYING
OF THE TITLE.
NOT OF THE WHOLE ORDINANCE.
THERE'S A LOT THERE, YOUR
HONOR.
>> WELL, I AM GIVING MY
THOUGHTS AS WELL BUT --
>> FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD SAY
THAT THE, THE RENOTICE WILL
CERTAINLY INFORM THE PUBLIC
THAT THE PROCESS HAS
STARTEDF OVER, THAT THERE IS
SOMETHING NEW.
NOW IT MAY BE IF THE COUNTY
CHOOSES TO TO BE TRICKY, BE
EXACTLY THE SAME TITLE.
OBVIOUSLY, AS THE COUNTY HAS
SUGGESTED, IT COULD DESCRIBE
ALL OF ITS LAND USE
ORDINANCES AS AN ORDINANCE
AFFECTED LAND USE IN MONROE
COUNTY, WHICH IS NOT VERY
DISTRIBUTIVE OF ANYTHING AND
WOULD ALLOW WITHIN THAT
PURPOSE LITERALLY ANY KIND
OF REGULATION FOR PERMITSIVE
OR PROHIBITED.
BUT I THINK THE MORE GENERAL
POINT IS THERE WOULD BE
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARINGS
BUT THAT WOULDN'T MEAN THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS WOULD
NEVER END.
THERE WOULD BE INPUT AND
PARTICIPATION FROM THE
PUBLIC, AND THAT MIGHT
MODIFY THE PROPOSAL AND
THERE MIGHT BE ADDITIONAL
HEARINGS.
BUT AT SOME POINT, THERE
WOULD BE A CONSENSUS, AND
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
STATUTE WOULD BE SATISFIED.
>> UNDER, UNDER YOUR THEORY,
THOUGH, WHAT, WHAT COULD
CHANGE THAT WOULD NOT
REQUIRE ADDITIONAL STARTING
THIS PROCESS OVER?
BECAUSE FROM WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING, ANY TIME THERE IS A
CHANGE, YOU HAVE TO START
OVER.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT COULD
CHANGE BASED ON THE PUBLIC
INPUT THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE
OUR RESTARTING OF THE
PROCESS?
>> OUR STANDARD IS NOT ANY
CHANGE.
IT'S OBVIOUSLY, THE, THE
PHRASE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
IS SUBSTANTIAL OR MATERIAL
CHANGE.
AND WE'RE LOOKING TO THE
TEXT OF THE STATUTE.
>> WELL, IN THIS CONTEXT,
WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT
WAS ADDING OR SUBTRACT
TRACTING THESE RENTAL, THE
RENTAL UNITS IN DIFFERENT
DISTRICTS.
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> WHAT COULD YOU CHANGE TO
THAT?
THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE A
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE BECAUSE
WHAT THEY WERE SAYING WAS
EITHER TAKING SOME OUT OF
THE PARTICULAR DISTRICT OR
PUTTING ALLOWING SOME INTO A
PARTICULAR DISTRICT.
ISN'T THAT WHAT WAS GOING ON
HERE?
>> CERTAINLY.
THE KEY CHANGES THAT WE HAVE
IDENTIFIED ON PAGE 8 OF OUR
INITIAL BRIEF WERE CHANGING
FROM ONE DRAFT APARTICULAR
USE BEING PERMISSIBLE.
TO ANOTHER DRAFT GOING
COMPLETELY THE OPPOSITE TO
BEING PERMITTED.
I THINK THOSE ARE THE ONES
OF MOST CONCERN AND THOSE
ARE THE ONES THAT DIRECTLY
IMPLICATE THE STATUTE.
WHAT, WHAT WE SUBMIT IS A
WAY TO LOOK AT THIS, IF
THERE WERE A PARTICULAR LAND
USE IN A PARTICULAR ZONING
CATEGORY, THAT ONE ORDINANCE
HAD PROHIBITED AND THE
COUNTY PROPOSED TO DO
ANOTHER ORDINANCE THAT WOULD
MAKE THAT USE PERMISSIBLE
RATHER THAN PROHIBITED, IT
WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH
THIS PROCESS.
THE PLAIN TEXT OF THE
STATUTE WOULD REQUIRE THAT.
OUR POINT IS IT WOULD ACCORD
WITH THE LEGISLATURE'S
DESIRE FOR PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION IF THE COUNTY
AS IT DID HERE SWITCHES
MIDSTREAM FROM PROHIBITED TO
PERMITTED.
IT NEEDS TO RESTART THE
PROCESS, AND GIVES CITIZENS
THAT.
>> I THINK THE CONCERN YOU
ARE HEARING FROM UP HERE IS
THAT IF, IF YOU REQUIRE
THERE TO BE A START OVER
EVERY TIME THERE IS ANY TYPE
OF, OF CHANGE, IF YOU ERR ON
THE SIDE OF MAKING THE
STARTOVER BECAUSE OF A
LIBERAL DEFINITION,,
SUBSTANTIAL HERE.
THAT WHAT YOU DO IS THAT YOU
STIFLE THE EFFECT OF PUBLIC
COMMENT.
BECAUSE WHEN THE PUBLIC
SHOWS UP IN COMMENTS,
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A
HEAVY BURDEN TO CARRY IN
ORDER TO GET ANYTHING DONE
IN REGARD TO THIS ORDINANCE
BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THAT THAT,
THAT ARE DOING IT RECOGNIZE
THAT IF THEY MAKE THAT CHAFB,
THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO
START OVER.
SO ISN'T THAT A REAL
CONCERN.
>> YOUR HONOR, I DON'T
BELIEVE IT'S A LIBERAL
STANDARD WE'RE PROPOSING OR
CONSERVATIVE STANDARD.
IT'S THE STANDARD THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS WRITTEN INTO
THIS STATUTE NO FEWER THAN
FOUR TIMES.
AND, AND, YES, IT IS A
CONCERN THE PUBLIC POLICY
CONCERN ABOUT FOSTERING
LEGISLATION BUT I THINK WHAT
THE -- HAS MADE IN THIS
STATUTE IS FOR LAND USE
ORDINANCES, THERE NEEDS TO
BE SOME EXTRA TIME.
THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE
PROCESS THAN THE TYPICAL
LEGISLATIVE INTERACTION, AND
I THINK AS WE POINTED OUT IN
OUR BRIEF, SUBDIVISION 3 IN
THIS STATUTE IS A GOOD
EXAMPLE OF THAT.
THAT PROVIDES FOR EMERGENCY
IT ENACTMENT PROCEDURES FOR
ALMOST EVERY KIND OF
LEGISLATION.
BUT THE LEGISLATURE HAS
SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT
EMERGENCY PROVISION IS NOT
AVAILABLE FOR THESE KIND OF
LAND USE ORDINANCES.
THESE KIND OF LAND
ORDINANCES NEED TO TAKE
TIME.
IF THERE NEEDS TO BE A THIRD
MEETING, IF THERE NEEDS TO
BE AB EXTRA 20 TO 30 DAYS OF
ADDITIONAL TIME, THAT'S A
GOOD THICK, NOT A BAD THING.
>> IN THIS CASE, THERE WERE
23 DIFFERENT DISTRICTS?
>> THERE WERE, THERE WERE 23
FISHING DISTRICTS, YOUR
HONOR.
>> AND HOW MANY DISTRICTS
WERE THERE IN TOTAL?
>> LOOKING AT APPENDIX B TO
OUR INITIAL BRIEF, THERE
LOOKS TO BE ABOUT 40 TO 50
TOTAL DISTRICTS.
SO LET'S SAY THERE ARE 40
DISTRICTS FOR THE FIRST
HEARING.
PEOPLE SHOW UP WITH A SPARSELY
POPULATED DISTRICTS AND SAY
WE DON'T THINK VACATION
HOMES SHOULD BE PROHIBITED
HERE.
WE THINK IT SHOULD BE AT
LEAST CONDITIONALUOUS AND
SAY OKAY WE ARE GOING TO
CHANGE THE STATTITUTE TO
CONDITIONAL USE AS TO NUMBER
40, THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO
THEN START THE PROCESS OVER.
>> YOUR HONOR, IT CERTAINLY
MAY, AND AGAIN, I THINK
THAT'S SOMETHING TO BE
EMBRACED.
SPEED AND EFFICIENCY ARE NOT
THE ONLY VALUES HERE.
THEY ARE CERTAINLY THE ONES
THAT THE COUNTY EMPHASIZES
BUT I THINK WHAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS SAID IN THIS
LAND USE CONTEXT WHERE
PEOPLE'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
ARE AT STAKE WHERE YOU
REALLY TALKING ABOUT --
>> LET ME GET BACK TO MY
EXAMPLE, THOUGH,.
LET'S SAY THEY TA DO THAT
AND THEY PUBLICKICIZE
ANOTHER NOTICE, HOW IS THE
PUB LBLG -- PUBLIC GOING TO
BE INFORMED THAT THET
ORDINANCE HAS NOW BEEN
CHANGED THERE IS NO CHANGES
TO 39 DISTRICTS BUT IN THAT
ONE 40th DISTRICTS THERE IS
GOING TO BE INSTEAD OF
PROHIBITED USE, THERE IS
GOING TO BE CONDITIONAL USE.
HOW DOES THE NOTICE INFORM
THE PUBLIC AT ALL ABOUT THAT
ONE CHANGE?
>> YOUR HONOR, THE PUBLIC
WILL BE INFORMED THAT, THAT
HAD PROCESS IS STARTING
OVER, AND UNDER THE SUNSHINE
LAWS, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO
HAVE ACCESS TO ALL OF THE
PROPOSED DRAFTS.
SO IT WILL TAKE A SID SWRN
THAT'S, THAT'S INTERESTED IN
THE PROCESS.
I GUESS I WOULD SAY IN
GENERAL, WITH REGARD TO YOUR
EXAMPLE, THERE'S, THERE'S NO
INHERENT REASON WHY THE
COUNTY HAS TO DEAL WITH 40
DISTRICTS AT ONE TIMEANE
SINGLE ORDINANCE.
IT MAY BE A SIGNIFICANT SIZE
PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE
DEALT WITH IN MORE
REASONABLE SIZE FIGHTS AND
SO --
>> NOTHING PROHIBITS THE
COUNTY FROM DOINGING WITH IT
ALL AT ONCE?
NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT THE
LEGISLATURE SCRIPTURES IN
THIS STATUTE REQUIRE SOME
ADDITIONAL HEARINGS, SOME
ADDITIONAL RESTARTING OF THE
PROCESS.
BUT THERE'S NOTHING INHERENT
THAT, THAT THERE HAS TO BE
THIS OMNIBUS APPROACH.
>> IF THAT WAS THE
LEGISLATIVE INTENT, THEN WHY
IN THE FORM THAT THEY
PROVIDE DID THEY JUST LIMIT
IT TO THE TITLE?
WHY WOULD THEY NOT HAVE PUT
IN PLACED THE ORDINANCE IN
THE ADVERTISEMENT?
>> YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT
THE STATUTE HERE HAS
NUMEROUS REQUIREMENTS FOR
WITH WHICH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
NEED TO COMPLY.
I THINK THAT TITLE IS ONE.
OBVIOUSLY, MULTIPET HEALERS
-- MULTIPLE HEARINGS AND
PARTICULAR KINDS OF
ADVERTISEMENTS ARE ANOTHER
BUT THE WRITE OO LIST ACTUAL
LIST OF PROHIBITED USES INTO
THE STATUTE NO FEWER THAN
FOUR TIMES.
>> BUT NOT IN THE NOTICE?
>> BUT NOT -- IT DOES
REQUIRE THAT LIST TO BE
PLACED IN THE NOTICE THAT
IT'S PUBLICBISHED SNATHAT IS
CORRECT, YOUR HONOR, AND
CERTAINLY OUR ARGUMENT IS
NOT THAT THAT KIND OF
DETAILED NOTICE IS REQUIRED.
>> IF WE COULD GO BACK TO
JUSTICE CANTERO'S.
START THE PROCESS AGAIN
BECAUSE YOU HAVE MADE A
CHANGE TO ONE OF THE
DISTRICTS.
AND NOW YOU'VE, YOU'VE
STARTED IT OVER, AND A
CITIZEN COULD COME IN FROM
ANOTHER DISTRICT.
SAY ANOTHER DISTRICT COMES
AND IN SAY, WELL WE DON'T
WANT TO TOTALLY DISBAND
VACATION RENTALS IN OUR
DISTRICT.
COULD WE HAVE CONDITIONAL
USE IN OUR DISTRICT ALSO?
AND AFTER MULLING IT OVER,
THE, THEY DECIDE, YES, THIS
DISTRICT CAN HAVE IT.
THEN YOU'D HAVE TO START THE
PROCESS AGAIN ALSO.
>> YOU WOULD, YOUR HONOR, IF
IT IMPLICATES THE ACTUAL
LIST OF, OF PROHIBITED AND
SO FORTH.
>> YOU ARE WELL NTO YOUR
REBUTTAL.
CERTAINLY USE YOUR TIME AS
YOU PLEASE.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE
MY BALANCE FOR REBUTTAL.
>> MR. SCALES?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
MAY IT PLEASE IT COURT.
FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO
INTRODUCE MYSELF.
I'M ED SCALES FROM THE KEY
WEST OFFICE OF GRAYROBINSON.
IN FACT, I AM THE KEY WEST
OFFICE OF GRAYROBINSON.
TO MY RIGHT IS MONRAY
CAMPBELL OF LAKELAND OFFICE
AND TO MONRAY'S RIGHT IS BOB
SHILLINGER THE CHIEF DEPUTY
COUNTY ATTORNEY FROM MONROE
COUNTY.
AND MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT,
THIS CASE AT ITS ESSENCE AND
JUSTICE CANTERO HIT ON ITS
IN HIS FIRST QUESTION IS
WHEN MUST THE PROCESS START
OVER AGAIN.
AND THAT'S THE CERTIFIED
QUESTION.
WHAT TYPE OF CHANGE TO A
LAND USE ORDINANCE REQUIRES
THE COUNTY TO START OVER
AGAIN?
AND THE COUNTY IS SUGGESTING
AN AMICUS IN THIS CASE IS
SUGGESTING, JUST UPON THE
SIDE, AMICUS IS THE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES IN
THE FLORIDA LEGAL OF CITIES
BECAUSE THE STATUTES
RELATING TO HOW COUNTIES
ADOPT ORDINANCES AND HOW
CITY ADOPT ORDINANCES OF
THIS TIME ARE -- TYPE ARE
IDENTICAL SO THERE ARE SOME
WIDE RANGE OF POSSIBLE
PRECEDENCE HERE.
WHAT THE COUNTY IS
SUGGESTING IS THAT WHEN THE
USE IS CHANGED, WHEN THE USE
THAT IS EFFECTIVE, WHICH IS
THE ORIGINAL GENERAL PURPOSE
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE,
THE, THE REGULATION OF
VACATION RENTALS, WHEN THAT
USE IS CHANGED, YOU HAVE A
NEW ORDINANCE IN THE PROCESS
NEEDS TO START ANEW.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN, IF IN THE
INTRAENACTMENT PROCESS THE
COUNTY HAD DECIDED IN
ADDITION TO REGULATING RENTAL
VACATION RENTALS WE WANT TO
REGULATE ADULT OR WHERE
SHOPPING CENTERS GOING WHERE
THE FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTER OF
THE ORDINANCE CHANGES THEN
THE PROCESS NEEDS TO BEGIN
ANEW.
>> WELL, CAN, IS THAT, 100%
THE CASE?
LET'S JUST TAKE IN THIS
SITUATION, THE -- VACATION
RENTALS AND I STARTED OUT
THINKING THEY GOT WHAT 26
DISTRICTS?
40 DISTRICTS.
THEY DECIDED THEY ARE GOING
TO JUST DO IT IN ONE.
AND AFTER HEARING THE FIRST
SET OF COMMENTS, THEY,
EVERYONE GOING, THIS IS SO
IMPORTANT.
WE NEED TO DO IT AND BAN IT
IN EVERY ONE.
IN OTHER WORDS, AT SOME
POINT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S
STILL THE SAME SUBJECT,
DOESN'T, ISN'T THERE A POINT
WHEN SOMETHING BECOMES A
SUBSTANTIAL AND MATERIAL
CHANGE.
>> THERE MOST CERTAINLY IS A
POINT, AND THAT POINT IS
SPECIFICALLY OUTLINED IN THE
STATUTE AND IT HAS TO DO
WITH GEOGRAPHY.
THERE IS A DIFFERENT NOTICE
REQUIREMENT FOR WHAT YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT, AN INSULAR
AREA FUFKTING TEN CONTIG WS
ACRES OR LESS THAT IS IN
MONROE COUNTY AN INSULAR
ZONING DISTRICT WHERE YOU
ARE GOING TO SAY IN THIS
PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT
HP 7 OR THE COMMERCIAL
FISHING DISTRICT OR 4 OR
WHATEVER, WE ARE GOING TO
CHANGE THET ZONING IN THAT
PARTICULAR DISTRICT.
THE STATUTE SAYS AN ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT NOTICE REQUIREMENT
IS REQUIRED FOR THAT
PARTICULAR CHANGE.
>> SO YOU CAN'T ENVISION
SOMETHING WHERE THE PURPOSE
REMAINS THE SAME OR THE
ORDINANCE BECOMES
SUBSTANTIALLY AND MATERIALLY
DIFFERENT AND THAT MAY NOT
BE A BRIGHT LINE RULE.
IT STILL MAY HAVE, AGAIN, AS
ITS OVERALL PURPOSE
REGULATION OF VACATION.
IS THERE --
>> IT CERTAINLY COULD BE IN
THE ABTRACT JUSTICE PARIENTE
BUT FROM A PRACTICAL
PERSPECTIVE THE WAY COUNTIES
AND CITIES WORK IT GOES
THROUGH PLANNING BOARDS AND
PLANNING REVIEW.
GENERALLY, WHAT HAPPENS IS,
AND LAND USE ORD NNS ARE
BASES ON -- ORDINANCERIZE
BASED ON TWO TYPES OF
ORDINANCES CITY OR
COUNTIWIDE IMPACT WHERE YOU
ARE TRYING TO DEAL WITH A
SUBJECT OF A COUNTIWIDE
BASIS AND THAT IS THE TYPE
OF ORDINANCE WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT IN INSTANT CASE OR
VERY INSULAR, DISCREET AREA
WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE
A CHANGE IN THAT PARTICULAR
AREA.
GENERALLY, THE BETWEEN NEVER
MEET.
YOU GENERALLY HAVE A PROCESS
WHERE, AND IN THIS CASE, IT
WAS NOTICED AS A, ALL OF THE
LAND USE DISTRICTS IN THE
COUNTY WOULD BE POTENTIALLY
AFFECTED BAUTS BECAUSE THIS
WAS A COUNTY WIDE PROBLEM.
AND, AND I APOLOGIZE, AND WE
DIDN'T REALLY TALK,
SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHAT,
WHAT WAS BEING REGULATED
HERE.
WE DOCKABOUT ABOUT VACATION
RENTALS OR VACATION USE,
SPECIFICALLY FOLKS IN THE
KEYS USE THEIR HOMES AS
HOTEL PROPERTIES.
WHERE THEY ARE RENTING ON A
SHORT TERM BASIS.
BS AND WHAT THE COUNTY DID
HERE, WHAT THE ORDINANCE WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT DID HERE,
IS IT SAID OKAY YOU CAN'T
RENT IT FOR FEWER THAN 28
DAZE.
BECAUSE WHAT WAS HAPPENING
HERE, WE HAD A COUPLE OF
ISSUES GOING ON ON
AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK HAD
BEEN DEPLENISHED BY THE USE
OF THESE VACATION HOMES,
PLUS, FOLKS WERE RENTING TO
SPRING BREAKERS AND THERE IS,
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE
FOLKS LIVING NEXT DOOR TO
YOU THAT THEY HAVE A
DIFFERENT SET OF -- THEY'RE
ON VACATION AND YOU ARE NOT,
IT CREATES PROBLEMS IN
NEIGHBORS SO THAT'S WHAT
REALLY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
SO I APOLOGIZE IF THAT
WASN'T CLEAR.
IN THIS CASE, IT WAS A
COUNTY WIDE PROBLEM T. HAS
BEEN A COUNTY WIDE PROBLEM
FOR 20 YEARS BECAUSE THE
KEYS LIKE MANY OTHER AREAS
ARE VACATION DESTINATION.
IN ANY EVENT, THE, THE, THE
PROCESS BEGAN AND THESE
PARTICULAR ORDINANCES WERE
VETTED NOT ONLY IN AT THE
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS LEVEL BUT AT
THE PLANNING BOARD LEVEL AND
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
LEVEL AND SO THIS WAS A VERY
HOT BUTTON ISSUE IN THE
FLORIDA KEYS.
IN ANY EVENT, TO ADDRESS
JUSTICE CANTEAR CANTERO'S
QUESTION TOLD EVERYBODY IN
THE FLORIDA'S KEY STHATS WE
ARE GOING TO ADDRESS THAT
SUGGEST, AND THAT SUBJECT IS
THE USE TO BE REGULATED,
WHICH WAS VACATION RENTALS.
AND THAT WAS THE NOTICE THAT
WAS SENT OUT.
INTERESTINGLY --
SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS
JUSTICE CANTERO'S QUESTION,
IF WE HAD RENOTICED AS IS
BEING SUGGESTED BY THE
PLAINTIFF'S, THE NOTICE
WOULD HAVE BEEN IDENTICAL
BECAUSE THE STATUTE
SPECIFICALLY SAYS THE NOTICE
MUST BE BY TITLE ONLY.
125.67 SAYS THE TITLE MUST
CONTAIN A SHORT STATEMENT OF
THE SUBJECT AND 125.67 THE
STATUTE RIGHT AFTER 125.66
SAYS THAT THE SUBJECT THAT,
THAT NO ORDINANCE CAN
CONTAIN MORE THAN ONE
SUBJECT.
SO WITHIN THOSE STATUTORY
PARAMETERS, THE NOTESIS
REQUIRED TO CARRY ONLY THE
TITLE, THE TITLE ONLY HAS
THE SUBJECT.
IF YOU WERE TO SEND OUT A
THIRD OR A FOURTH NOTICE,
THE, THE NOTICE WOULD BE
IDENTICAL BASED ON THOSE
STATUTORY PARAMETERS, SO IT
WOULD BE IN EFFECT A
MEANINGLESS ACT.
>> WE ARE HERE ON A
CERTIFIED QUESTION OF THE
11th CIRCUIT, AND WHAT, I
WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO
ADDRESS IS THE ANSWER
DIRECTLY TO THE DIRECT
QUESTION THAT'S CERTIFIED.
AND THAT IS WHETHER A
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE INCLUDES
A CHANGE TO THE ACTUAL LIST
OF PERMITTED CONDITIONAL.
USE.
AND THE ANSWER TO THAT
QUESTION IS ONLY THOSE
CHANGES THAT ARE MADE
INTRAENACT NLT THAT RENDER
THE -- INTRAENACTMENT THAT
RENDTHER TITLE MEANINGLESS,
CHANGING THE SUBJECT OF THE
MEASURE REQUIRES THE PROCESS
TO BEGIN ANEW.
SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS THE
CERTIFIED QUESTION, THEN, IF
THE USE TO BE REGULATED
CHANGES, THEN THAT WOULD
ENACT, THAT WOULD REQUIRE
THE PROCESS TO BEGIN ANEW.
>> HOW DOES THAT DIFFER FROM
THE ALTERNATIVE THAT THE
11ICT CIRCUIT PROPOSED WHICH
IS A CHANGE IN THE ORIGINAL
GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE
PROPOSED ORDINANCE?
>> IT DOESN'T.
AND THAT'S OUR, IT IS OUR
ARGUMENT THAT THE TERMS ARE
SINOMMOUS.
ORIGINAL GENERAL PURPOSE IS
SINOMMOUS WITH SUBJECT,
WHICH IS SINOMMOUS WITH, AND
THIS IS LANGUAGE FROM THE
OTHER STATES THAT WE HAVE
CITED, FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTER,
BASIC CHARACTER, OR ORIGINAL
PURPOSE OUT OF TEXAS, CITED
BY ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND,
AND IDENTITY OF PROPOSAL,
WHEN THE IDENTITY OF THE
PROPOSAL CHANGES.
THE SINNONYMOUS WITH
ORDINANCE IS THE USE TO BE
REGULATED.
IN THIS CASE, VACATION
RENTALS.
NOT THE LIST OF AFFECTED
ZONING DISTRICTS.
>> WHAT'S VIRTUALLY NO
CHANGE WILL REQUIRE THE
ENACTMENT PROCESS TO BEGIN
ANEW.
>> WELL, AGAIN, I THINK THAT
THE TITLING REQUIREMENTS IN
125.67 SPECIFICALLY SAY THAT
THE SUBJECT MUST BE
REFERENCED IN THE TITAL AND
THIS COURT'S CASE LAW ON
WHAT A SUBJECT IS, I THINK
WOULD GOVERN THAT BECAUSE
125.67 IS IDENTICAL TO THE
PROVISIONS NOST FLORIDA
CONSTITUTION, WHICH GOVERN
LEGISLATIVE ACTS.
AND SPECIFICALLY TO ANSWER
YOUR QUESTION, COMMON SENSE
BECAUSE I THINK WHEN YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT A LAND USE
ORDINANCE, THE USE REGULATED
IS THE SUBJECT.
>> YOU AGREE, DO YOU NOT,
THAT THE LAND -- THE CITIZEN
LANDOWNER ALWAYS RETAINS THE
RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE
ADEQUACY OF THE NOTICE THAT
WAS PROVIDED IN TERMS OF
HAVING A SPECIFIC IMPACT ON
THE PROPERTY THAT THEY
OWNED.
THAT IS, THAT IF, IF THEIR
PROPERTY IS SOMEHOW
CONFISICATED OR
SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED IN
THE NOTICE WAS NOT ADQT, TO
PUT THEM ON NOTICE, THAT
THIS IS NOW THE TIME FOR
THEM TO, TO COME AND SPEAK
UP.
THAT, THAT IS A SEPARATE
ISSUE BUT YOU AGREE THAT
THAT NOTICE HAS TO MEET
THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL
STANDARDS.
>> YES, JUSTICE ANSTEAD, I
DO, AND AS YOU WROTE IN THE
NORTH MIAMI DACE OR I'M
SORRY, THE NORTH BEACH v.
FORT LAUDERDALE CASE, THE
NOTICE THAT IS REQUIRED IS A
NOTICE THAT THE REASONABLE
PERSON CAN UNDERSTAND.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A
ZONING EXPERT TO APPRECIATE
THAT NOTICE, BUT IMPORTANTLY,
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
HERE IS A LEGISLATIVE
FUNCTION AS OPPOSED TO A
QUASI-JUDICIAL JUNCTION.
-- FUNCTION, THIS IS NOT A
CASE I WHERE A PARTICULAR
APPLICANT IS SEEKING A
VARIANCE OR SPECIAL
EXCEPTION.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
LEGISLATION AFFECTING THE
ENTIRE COUNTY SO THERE IS A
BALANCE BETWEEN THE
FLEXIBILITY THAT THE
LEGISLATIVE BODY HAS AND THE
CONCEPT OF NOTICE.
BUT THAT BALANCE IS STRUCK.
BUT THAT NOTESIS STRUCKINATE
IN THE STATTITUTE.
>> YOU STARTED OUT BY USING
AN EXAMPLE, FOR INSTANCE, IF
THEY SHOWED UP AT THE
COMMISSION MEETING AND
INSTEAD OFDRIESING RENTALS,
YOU KNOW, IN THESE DISTRICTS,
NOW THEY STARTED ADDRESSING
WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN SELL
LIQUOR OR, OR, OR, OR, YOU
KNOW, IT COULD BE AN ADULT
BOOKSTORE OR SOMETHING.
AND SO THE CITIZEN LANDOWNER
ALWAYS RETAINS THE RIGHT TO
SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, YOU HAVE
MOVED THE P HERE AND YOU
KNOW YOU HAVE TAKEN AWAY
SOMETHING THAT I HAD BEFORE
OR YOU'VE PUT SOME BURDEN
THAT, THAT THE NOTICE DIDN'T
REALLY ADEQUATELY PUT ME ON
NOTICE.
>> ABSOLUTELY, BUT I THINK
-- AND I AGREE WITH YOU
JUSTICE ANSTEAD -- THE
CITIZEN RETAINS THAT.
>> I AM TRYING TO BE SURE IN
WHAT I PERCEIVE TO BE SORT
OF AN APPLES AND ORANGES
KIND OF SITUATION.
NOT TO MOVE INTO THAT AREA
BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING THAT
YOU WOULD ALWAYS AGREE THAT
THIS NOTICE HAS TO BE
ADEQUATE.
IN TERMS OF THAT, YOU KNOW,
FROM THE BEGINNING.
TO PUT AFFECTED LANDOWNERS
ON NOTICE THAT SOMETHING'S
GOING TO HAPPEN.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
ABSOLUTELY.
AND THE NOTICE IS, IS
ESSENTIAL AND THE NOTICE OF
PROVISIONS INCIDENTALLY MAKE
UP 85% OF THE SUBJECT
STATUTE SO THE NOTESIS
CRITICAL.
WHAT IS -- NOTICE IS
CRITICAL.
WHAT IS CONTAINED IN THE
NOTICE, HOWEVER S
STATUTORILY MANDATED AND
THAT IS THE SUBJECT AND THE
PURPOSE OF THAT, AND AGAIN
THAT CHANGE WAS MADE BY THE
LEGISLATURE IN 1995.
THE PURPOSE OF THAT CHANGE
WAS TO GIVE MORE FLEXIBILITY
TO MUNICIPALITIES AND
COUNTIES.
BUT, THE, THE, WHAT YOU
DEFINITELY WANT TO, WANT TO
BE CAREFUL ABOUT IF YOU'RE
THE COUNTEE YOSHGS RUR THE
MUNICIPAL, -- COUNTY, YOU'RE
THE MUNICIPALITY IS MAKING
SURE ANY CHANGE THAT YOU
MAKE IN THE PROCESS IS
ENCOMPASSED IN THE NOTICE.
AND THOSE CHANGES THAT YOU
MAKE, IF THEY ARE OUTSIDE
THE SCOPE OF WHAT YOU ARE
NOTICING AND WE WOULD
SUGGEST THAT THE NOTICE
WOULD BE, THE PERMITTED
CONDITIONAL OR PROHIBITED
USES THAT IF YOU CHANGE WHAT
USE YOU'RE REGULATING, THEN
YOU HAVE GOT OUTSIDES OF THE
SCOPE OF THE NOTES AND THAT
WOULD REQUIRE THE PROCESS TO
BEGIN ANEW.
BUT FORNTLY, IN THE INSTANT
CASE, THE TRIAL COURT FOUND
AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE
NOTICE MET THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE STATUTE.
SO THE,, THE SO WE'RE, WE'RE
NOT REALLY TALKING IN THE
INSTANT CASE ABOUT WHETHER
THE NOTICE WAS, WAS VALID.
THE NOTICE IS VALID.
>> WHEN YOU SAID THAT THE
NOTICE HAS TO LIST A SUBJECT,
AND I KNOW WE GHET WITH
SINGLE SUBJECT CASES, AND
FOR THE LEGISLATURE, YOU
KNOW, SOMETIMES THE SUBJECT
IS REGULATING THE CRIMINAL
LAW OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
YOU KNOW, AND IT'S SO BROAD
THAT IT'S ENCOMPASSES A LOT.
WHAT IS, IF WE'RE GOING TO
BE LOOKING AT THE
SUBSTANTIAL MATERIAL CHANGE
IS ONE THAT WOULD CHANGE THE
SUBJECT MATTER THAT WOULD
REQUIRE A CHANGE IN THE
TITLE.
WOULD THAT BE THE WAY YOU
DEFINE IT?
>> THAT IS THE STANDARD THAT
THE COUNTY IS SUGGESTING.
THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS
SUGGESTING.
>> BUT MY QUESTION THERE IS
HOW BROAD CAN YOU -- ARE YOU
ALLOWED TO MAKE THE TITLE
AND CAN YOU MAKE IT SO BROAD
THAT IT REALLY DOES ALLOW
FAR MORE CHANGES TO OCCUR
THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN
ANTICIPATED BY THE STATUTE.
A CITIZENS AT ALL TIMES ARE
AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, SOME
WHOSE, DOES A SUBJECT BUT
IT'S NARROW ONE VERSUS THE
BROAD ONE.
HOW DO YOU ADDRESS THAT
CONCERN?
>> FROM A PRACTICAL
STANDPOINT, THAT REALLY
DOESN'T HAPPEN BECAUSE I'VE
NEVER SEEN AN ORDINANCE I
WAS NEVER A CITY
COMMISSIONER, I'VE NEVER
SEEN A LAND USE ORDINANCE
THAT SAYS WE ARE GOING TO
AFFECT LAND USE IN ALL OF
OUR CATEGORIES.
I THINK THAT NOTICE WOULD BE
SO BROAD AS TO BE
MEANINGLESS, ESPECIALLY IN
THE CONTEXT OF, OF 125.66.
I THINK YOU ARE SAYING OUR
CASE LAW WOULD GOVERN THAT
--
>> YES, YOUR CASE LAW WOULD
GOVERN THAT AND IF THE 11th
CIRCUIT HAS INDICATED THERE
IS NO CASE LAW DIRECTLY ON
POINT BUT ALL OF THE CASES
FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS
THAT HAVEDRIESED THIS ISSUE
-- ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE
LOOKED AT WHETHER THE
FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTIC
HAS CHANGED WLRX THE CHANGE
IS SUCH THAT WOULD BE
TREATED AS A NEW PROPOSAL,
IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE
WERE ZONING DISTRICTS
BETWEEN THE FIRST READING
AND SECOND READING AND THAT
IS THE TO BE EXPECTED,
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT LEGISLATION AS
OPPOSED TO A QUASI-JUDICIAL
FORUM.
AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS
IN MONROE COUNTY, YOU WALK
INTO YOUR COUNTY
COMMISSIONER AT THE GROCERY
STORE OR THE PET STORE WHEN
YOU ARE WALKING YOUR DOG OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND YOU
SAY, HEY, THIS IS A PROBLEM
IN MY AREA.
I KNOW YOU ARE CONSIDERING
IT, BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND
READING IN THIS CASE WAS TWO
MONTHS, AND THERE IS INPUT
THERE.
THERE IS ALSO INPET AT THE
PUBLIC MEETINGS SO YOU WANT
THE LIDGE SLATIVE BODY TO
REACT -- LEGISLATIVE BODY TO
REACT NIMBLY AND DYNAMICALLY
TO THAT INPUT WITHOUT HAVE
TROG START THE PROCESS OVER,
ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE
PARAMETERS OF THE STATUTE IF
WHEN YOU START THAT PROCESS
OVER, THE NEW NOTICE THAT
YOU GIVE IS GOING TO BE
IDENTICAL TO THE NOTICE THAT
YOU'VE ALREADY GIVEN, IT'S
SORT OF A MEANINGLESS
EXERCISE.
DOES IT, DOES THAT ANSWER
THE QUESTION?
SO, IN, CONCLUSION, I THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
AND WOULD REMIND THIS COURT
THAT, THAT THE COUNTY, THE
PLAINTIFFS, THERE HAS NOT
BEEN ONE CASE SOIST CITED
WHERE A COURT HAS VOIDED AN
ORDINANCE THAT ENACTS
PRECISELY WHAT WAS
ADVERTISED.
THE PLAINTIFFS ARE ASKING
YOU TO SET SOME GROUND HERE,
SET SOME PRECEDENT BY
SUGGESTING THAT THE COUNTY'S
ORDINANCE BE VOIDED WHEN IT
ACTED PRECISELY WHAT
OZADSVERTISED.
THANK YOU.
>> I'LL START WITH THAT WORD
PRECISELY.
THE PROPOSAL OF THE COUNTY
IN THIS CASE IS TO FOR THIS
COURT TO VAL DADE A STANDARD
UNDER WHICH THE COUNTY COULD
GIVE NOTICE OF AN ORDINANCE
REGULATING LAND USE IN
MONROE COUNTY.
AND THERE IS NOT ANY CHANGE
THAT COULD BE MADE DURING
THE ENACTMENT PROCESS THAT
WOULD TAKE THE PROPOSED
ORDINANCE OUT OF THAT TITLE.
OUT OF THAT SNL.
SO TO BORROW --
>> FIRST OF ALL, DO YOU
AGREE THAT FOLLOW UPIN' UP
ON THE QUESTIONS THAT I ASK
YOUR OPPONENT HERE, THAT
THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT
ISSUES THAT COULD BE
IMPLICATED BUT ONE IS REALLY
NOT IMPLICATED IN THE, IN
YOUR POSITION HERE.
AND THAT IS THAT YOU ARE NOT
CHALLENGING THIS ON THE
BASIS THAT HEY, THIS NOTICE
TO BEGIN WITH WAS NOT
ADEQUATE TO PUT ME AS A
LANDOWNER ON NOTICE THAT
SOMETHING MIGHT HAPPEN IN
THIS SUBJECT MATTER TO MY
PROPERTY.
THAT THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE,
INSOFAR AS AS, YOU KNOW,
SOME MINIMUM SAFEGUARD TO
ALL PROPERTY OWNERS THAT,
THAT, THAT, SUBSTANTIAL
CHANGE WON'T BE MADE.
THERE HAS TO BE ADEQUATE
NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY
OWNERS TEWLERT THEM.
YOU ARE NOT RELYING ON YOUR
FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT, ARE YOU?
>> IN ONE SENSE THAT IS
CORRECT.
WE ARE FOCUSED ON THIS
STATUTE 125.66 ALTHOUGH WE
VERY STRONGLY ARGUE THAT
THAT NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED
IN LIGHT OF THE DUE PROCESS
LIKE REQUIREMENTS THAT --
>> BUT YOU'RE FOCUSING ON
THE ISSUE HERE OF JUST HOW
MUCH ROOM --
>> CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
>> -- ONCE NOTICE IS GIVEN
THAT A COUNTY GOVERNMENT,
CITY GOVERNMENT HAVE NOW TO
MOVE WITHIN THE AREA THAT
THEY HAVE NOTICED THAT THEY
ARE GOING TO TAKE SOME
ACTION ON.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR
HONOR.
>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
GOING BACK TO YOUR ORIGINAL
STATEMENT IN REBUTTAL THAT
THE CITY CAN DEFINE THE
STATUTE SO BROADLY REGULATED
LAND USE, AREN'T THERE
INTERNAL DISINCENTIVES IS
BECAUSE THE COUNTY
COMMISSION DOESN'T WANT THE
ENTIRE COUNT ACOMING TO A
HEARING WHEN THEY DON'T KNOW
REGULATE LAND USE.
IT MAY REGULATE LAND QLUS.
IT MAY REGULATE MY HOTEL.
THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF
PEOPLE AT THE HEARING WHEN
ALL THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT
IS VACATION RENTALS.
ISN'T THERE AN INCENTIVE TO
THE COUNTY PARTLY WHY WE
DON'T SEE MANY CASES LIKE
THIS WHERE THE COUNTY HAS
DEFINED IT SO BROADLY, ISN'T
THERE A STANDARD TO DEFINE
IT AT THE LEVEL OF
SPECIFICITY SO ONLY PROPERTY
OWNERS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY
THE CHANGE ARE GOING TO BE
COMING TO THE HEARING?
>> THERE MAY BE, YOUR HONOR,
BUT THE QUESTION HERE IS
WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS
IMPOSED BY THE LEGISLATURE.
I THINK THE PROBLEM WITH THE
COUNTY'S APPROACH IS EVEN IF
WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT
TALKS ABOUT THE REGULATION
OF VACATION RENTALS.
WE COULD HAVE A FIRST DRAFT
THAT COMPLETELY BANS
VACATION RENTALS IN ONE
PORTION OF THE COUNTY AND
PERMITS IT IN THE OTHER.
AND UNDER THE COUNTY'S
THEORY, THAT COULD TOTALLY
SWITCH BETWEEN THE FIRST AND
SECOND READINGS.
AND THEY COULD BE ALLOW IN
ONE PORTION AND PROHIBITED
IN THE OTHER.
>> BUT PROPERTIERS ARE
INFORMED THEY KNOW THERE IS
GOING TO BE A FIRST READING
AND THEY KNOW THERE IS GOING
TO BE A SECOND HARING SO
THEY KNOW TO ATTEND ONE
HEARING AND ATTEND THE OTHER
HEARING.
>> WELL, I THINK IT'S NOT
FAIR TO THE CITIZEN WHO
ATTENDS THE FIRST HEARING
AND SAYS WHAT, WHAT THE
COMMISSIONERS ARE
DELIBERATING ON IS A
PROHIBITION IN ANOTHER PART
OF THE COUNTY SO I DON'T
HAVE TO WORRY AND THEN THE
ORDINANCE CHANGES
SUBSTANTIALLY, MATERIALLY
BETWEEN THE FIRST AND SECOND
READING.
>> WITH OUR ASSISTANCE, YOU
HAVE EXHAUSTED YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU,.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ARGUMENTS AND WE WILL TAKE
YOUR CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT.
THE COURT WILL TAKE ITS
MORNING RECESS.