ÿWPC˜P ‡PüwB¿ŠíRY7S#É~cRpÆÅ^õ=ˆó:sð£H–(÷hHÊË-ŸZ;à!bÕ¡³P‘Ñ û†FM‚`Ѷ½›¸Ô;]÷ÏYš¬³o$‘¼>$…¹¤ÂFuÜ>l€õûѼò ÝBlÒòû³'^@h•Þ_5k‡–Éß«Î_¼ÞÐ^õ/æúÑ2ŠUØw‹¾hvËÚ˜()9Ò“ŠlAQôNEê&L® 3ŸŸ9|Ñ):®ÆpІs³Z§9T3ö?¡`ä~¨ŒŸÁjue@sá}ý]’¦I.(ýXìa›üÔþÜM#äi:ââj'OøöQDR üØíùæ\`u/ƒÏm¼˜1Ê`0ÚÇa£ªf Ê`Ô `šÁÌÓÊð~ËúRb„É  oØn· ÉÔlp×-ÂÒÖ PWe°-î멜‹R­‡Z‹*{ÅþHT}­AÕÂ÷G2‹Œ€¬›ž£þ…*lsJ.Ð'øy»&(€x:™žWE"_‚5öχ¨+_{°³? 9±/¿;ÊQöÞ–ån—#ÿÇkŽOcÅ^¯ïªÊ\!ÎM— ?L¿€Þò¤Ï{±Ó#UÏÇ`šU6Bö…ÄŠœ#!ˆ UN© %÷ 0(ý ^ % w|1 4­ Á Ð mÒ Eé  ë UHø UH@U:ˆbÂMÊ 01Î 0=ÿ 0È< 0> 0ÊB 0´  0´À 0at 0´Õ 0´‰ 09= 0Üv 02R 0ü„ 0:€ 0…º 0_? 0 ž 0k¨ 0Ç B*Ú D3 C7 D+Q 0Ç| 0çC 06* 0` 0:h 0h¢ 0F !U6P!U>†!U*Ä!îî!UNÜ"UH*#*#UNr#r#ÆÀ#Ɔ$ÆL%Æ&ÆØ& A©ž' 0PG( 0K—( 0Dâ(N&) 0s() 0D›) 0xß)(W*M* D3ƒ*ƒ*ƒ*ƒ*ƒ*ƒ*ƒ*ƒ*ƒ*¶*¶*¶*¶* B¾*¾*¾*¾*¾*¾*¾*¾*¾*¾*¾*¾*¾*¾*¾*¾*¾*¾*¾*¾*¾*¾*¾* Û*Û*Û*Û*Û*Û*Û* 0cá*á*á*á*á*á*á*ÄD+å2)í3Î5úä5&Þ7j9!n9Ý:}l<Üé@sÅA~8D¶D 0NÌF8GG6RG>ˆGˆG8ÆGÆGÆG6þG>4H8rHrHrH 0ªH 07«I 0 âJU 0îKzL˜HP LaserJet 4Si MX,ü,,,,,ü0(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡i}+c±²E³´µE¶·H¸D¹º»[¼ ½¾¿DÀEÁÂÅUÆD=ˆÅ* 4‰3|xÆÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒt`Ô'ÝÔ€X#XXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà€$$;(#àÔ€X]þXX6X#ÔÔ€5XNXX7X]þÔÔ_ÔELULSÔ_Ô€MemorandumˆÐ ° Ðà€ðð:(#àNovember€30,€2001*°À` 1x 0Albertus (W1) Medium*°À` 1x 0Albertus (W1) Medium,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<GDÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ;1ܰÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ  ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó('zÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°Ôó óÔ  ÔÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8SPÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ;1ܰÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡1<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡2ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6&)ÿÿ4HyperlinkÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡1<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔó óÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡2ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È (#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡1<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡2ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È (#/Ó<ÃÇÿÿ:z©Bottom of ÓI€'(4$À˜ ** €€d€dIÓÓ  ÓÔB  ÔÔ € ÔÔ‡ÔÔ?‡3%ä2¼A`Arial?ÔÓ9€)(*À  €€d€d9ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡2ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÔ € Ô&ÿÿ0 d d&&&&'þÿÈÈÈÈdxd÷ÿdÿÿÿd'ÈÈÈÈdxd<ÃÇÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓI€'(4$À˜** €€d€dIÓÓ  ÓÔB  ÔÔ € ÔÔ‡ÔÔ?‡3%ä2¼A`Arial?ÔÓ9€)(*À  €€d€d9ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡2ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÔ € Ô0Klÿÿ.SampleÔK‡1<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔS‡2ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡1<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡2ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó:ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô<þ6X9`(Courier Newô\  `&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`Arial äÝ ƒt`Ô'ÝÔ€6X#XXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà€$$;(#àÔ€8XNXX6X#ÔÔ_ÔELULSÔ_Ô€MemorandumˆÐ ° Ðà€ðð:(#àNovember€29,€2001(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular*°À` 1x 0Albertus (W1) Medium(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5:@A)›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK((3º¬$££Ý ƒƒ•!ÝÑ  ÑÝ  Ý( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó($Ó$‘‘òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó((#2s$¥¥Ý ƒƒ•!ÝÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.à0  à(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(+%2“$¤¤Ý ƒƒ•!ÝÑ  ÑÝ  ÝòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóóà0  àVVVV'ÿÿdxd  dH(;3`Ô$§§Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ XÞLXXXÔ ºÝ ƒF“$ÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóóà0  àÝ  ÝÔ_Ôð ðIt€has€been€repeatedly€held€by€the€courts€of€this€state€that€in€order€to€assure€due€processÐ ° Ðand€equal€protection€of€the€laws,€every€final€order€entered€by€an€administrative€agency€inÏthe€exercise€of€quasi„judicial€functions€must€contain€specific€findings€of€fact€upon€whichÏits€ultimate€action€is€taken.ðð€òòIrvine€v.€Duval€County€Planning€Comm'nóó,€466€So.€2d€at€366Ð €Ð Ð(Fla.€1st€DCA€1985)€(Zehmer,€J.,€òòdissentingóó)€(òòquotingóó€òòGentry€v.€Department€of€Profððl€&Ð pÀ ÐOccupational€Regulationsóó,€283€So.€2d€386,€387€(Fla€1òòstóó€DCA€1973);€òòAccordóó,€òòe.g.,óó€òòHickeyÐ ` ° Ðv.€Wellsóó,€91€So.€2d€206€(Fla.€1957);€€òòLaney€v.€Holbrookóó,€8€So.€2d€465,€467€(Fla.€1942);Ð P   ÐòòHarvey€v.€Nuzumóó,€345€So.€2d€1106€(Fla.€1òòstóó€DCA€1977);€òòEdwards€v.€Division€ofÐ @  ÐBeverage,€Bd.€of€Bus.€Regulationsóó,€278€So.€2d€659€(Fla.€1òòstóó€DCA€1973);€€òòMcCulley€Ford,Ð 0 € ÐInc.€v.€Calvinóó,€308€So.€2d.€189€(Fla€1òòstóó€DCA€1975);€òòFord€v.€Bay€County€School€Boardóó,Ð  p  Ð246€So.€2d€119€(Fla.€1òòstóó€DCA€1970);€òòPowell€v.€Board€of€Public€Instruction€of€LevyÐ `  ÐCountyóó,€229€So.€2d€308€(Fla€1òòstóó€DCA€1970);€òòPolar€Ice€Cream€&€Creamery€Co.€v.Ð P  ÐAndrewsóó,€150€So.€2d€504€(Fla.€1òòstóó€DCA1963);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòSunbelt€Equitiesóó,€619€So.€2d€996,Ð ð@  Ð998€n.1,€1000„1002€(Fla.€2d€DCA€1993);€òòCity€of€Apopka€v.€Orange€Countyóó,€299€So.€2dÐ à0  Ð657,€660€(Fla.€4òòthóó€DCA€1974).€òòóó ÛÝ ƒF“$ÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  Úóóà0  àÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòId.óó€(Zehmer,€J.,€òòdissentingóó)€òò€€óóð ðIt€is€not€sufficient€that€the€cited€findings€merely€be€generalÐ ° Ðconclusions€in€the€language€of€the€statute€or€ordinance€because€such€conclusions€provideÏno€way€for€the€court€to€know€on€judicial€review€whether€the€conclusions€have€sufficientÏfoundations€in€findings€of€fact.ðð€òòId.€óó(Zehmer,€J.,€òòdissentingóó).€ Ý ƒF“$ÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  Úóóà0  àÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòIrvineóó,€466€So.€2d€at€366€n.€5€(Zehmer,€J.,€òòdissentingóó)€(òòquotingóó€òòMcDonald€v.€DepartmentÐ ° Ðof€Banking€&€Fin.óó,€346€So.€2d€569,€583€n.€12€(Fla.€1òòstóó€DCA€1977)). ÄÝ ƒF“$ÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  Úóóà0  àÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòId.€óó(Zehmer,€J.,€òòdissentingóó)€òò(quotingóó€òòLaney€v.€Holbrookóó,€8€So.€2d€465,€468€(Fla.€1942)).€ ðÝ ƒF“$ÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  Úóóà0  àÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòId.;óó€òòsee,€e.g.,€Lynch„Davidson€Motors€Inc.€v.€Calvinóó,€308€So.€2d€197€(Fla.€1òòstóó€DCA€1975);òòÐ ° ÐMcCulley€Ford,€Inc.€v.€Calvinóó,€308€So.€2d€189€(Fla€1òòstóó€DCA€1975);€òòBill€Kelley€Chevrolet,Ð  ð ÐInc.€v.€Calvinóó,€308€So.€2d€199€(Fla.€1òòstóó€DCA€1975);òò€City€of€Apopka€v.€Orange€Countyóó,Ð à Ð299€So.€2d€657€(Fla.€4òòthóó€DCA€1974). Ý ƒF“$ÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  Úóóà0  àÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòIrvineóó,€466€So.€2d€at€366€n.€5€(Zehmer,€J.,€òòdissentingóó)€òò(quoting€McDonald€v.€DepartmentÐ ° Ðof€Banking€&€Financeóó,€346€So.€2d€569,€583€n.€12€(Fla.€1òòstóó€DCA€1977)). `Ý ƒF“$ÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  Úóóà0  àÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSee€òòId.óó Ý ƒF“$ÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  Úóóà0  àÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSee€Irvine€v.€Duval€County€Planning€Commððnóó,€466€So.€2d€357€(Fla.€1st€DCA€1985)€Ð ° Ð(Zehmer,€J.,€òòdissentingóó).€€òòSee€alsoóó€cases€cited€in€Endnote€16,€òòsupraóó. ÓÝ ƒF“$ÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  Úóóà0  àÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSee€Florida€Power€&€Light€Co.€v.€City€of€Daniaóó,€No.€SC€93940,€2000€Fla.€LEXIS€1220Ð ° Ð(Fla.€June€15,€2000);€òòóó€òòSection€11€Property€Corp.óó,€719€So.€2d€1204,€1205€(Fla.€3d€DCAÐ  ð Ð1998)òòóó;€òòBlumenthalóó,€675€So.€2d€598€(Fla.€3d€DCA€1995);òò€Multidyne€Med.€W.€Mgt.óó,€567Ð à ÐSo.€2d€955€€(Fla.€4òòthóó€DCA€1990). sÝ ƒF“$ÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  Úóóà0  àÝ  ÝÔ_Ôð ðSubstantial€evidence€has€been€described€as€such€evidence€as€will€establish€a€substantialÐ ° Ðbasis€of€fact€from€which€the€fact€at€issue€can€be€reasonably€inferred.€€We€have€stated€it€toÏbe€such€relevant€evidence€as€a€reasonable€mind€would€accept€as€adequate€to€support€aÏconclu‚sion.€€In€employing€the€adjective€ððcompetentðð€to€modify€the€word€ððsubstantial,ðð€weÏare€aware€of€the€familiar€rule€that€in€administrative€proceedings€the€formalities€and€theÏintroduc‚tion€of€testimony€common€to€the€courts€of€justice€are€not€strictly€employed.€€WeÏare€of€the€view,€however,€that€the€evidence€relied€upon€to€sustain€the€ultimate€findingÏshould€be€sufficiently€relevant€and€material€that€a€reasonable€mind€would€accept€it€asÏadequate€to€support€the€conclusion€reached.€€To€this€extent,€the€ððsubstantialðð€evidenceÏshould€also€be€ððcompetent.ðððð€€(Citations€omitted.)€€òòDeGroot€v.€Sheffieldóó,€95€So.€2d€912,Ð  p  Ð916€(Fla.€1957);€òòPollard€v.€Palm€Beach€Countyóó,€560€So.€2d€1358€(Fla.€4th€DCA€1990). ÒÝ ƒF“$ÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  Úóóà0  àÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòFlorida€Power€&€Light€Co.€v.€City€of€Daniaóó,€No.€SC€93940,€2000€Fla.€LEXIS€1220€(Fla.Ð ° ÐJune€15,€2000). iÝ ƒF“$ÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  Úóóà0  àÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€result€is€contrary€to€the€explicit€reasoning€in€òòIrvineóó€that,€€ð ð[t]o€meet€due€processÐ ° Ðrequirements,€it€is€necessary€that€the€agency€set€out€detailed€facts€found€from€theÏevidence€so€that€a€court€authorized€to€review€the€matter€on€certiorari€can€first€determineÏwhether€or€not€the€facts€found€by€the€agency€constituted€lawful€grounds€for€its€action€and,Ïthen,€determine€whether€the€evidence€supports€the€findings.ðð€òòIrvineóó,€466€So.€2d€at€366Ð pÀ Ð(Zehmer,€J.,€òòdissentingóó). tÝ ƒF“$ÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  Úóóà0  àÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSnyderóó,€627€So.€2d€at€471. Ý ƒF“$ÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  Úóóà0  àÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSee€Sunbelt€Equitiesóó,€619€So.€2d€at€998,€n.1€(holding€that€written€findings€are€beneficialÐ ° Ðin€review€of€a€rezoning);€€òòIrvineóó,€466€So.€2d€at€365„366€(holding€that€written€findings€areÐ  ð Ðrequired€in€review€of€a€zoning€exception);€òòCity€of€Apopka€v.€Orange€Countyóó,€299€So.€2dÐ à Ðat€660€(holding€that€written€findings€required€in€review€of€a€zoning€exception).ò òòòóóó ó(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔmailto:ksanders@edcolaw.commailto:thainline@rtlaw.commailto:goldehoff@earthlink.netmailto:ksanders@edcolaw.commailto:thainline@rtlaw.commailto:goldehoff@earthlink.netmailto:ksanders@edcolaw.com<bbÿÿ:Body Text InÓ X ÓÔS‡2ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔò òÓ  Óó óÔS‡2ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ<v„ÿÿ:Footnote TexÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔE‡š2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡2ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÔ  Ô<aoÿÿ:Footnote RefÔ‡XXXÔÔE‡š2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔòòÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡2ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔóó2Ͼ¦ `CG Times pÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÝ‚—ÿÿÿÝÓ XÓÔ€2X¾ÞXXXÔò òÝ  ÝÝ‚—ÿÿÿ+ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚™ÿÿÿÝÔ€2X¾ÞXX2X¾ÞÔÔ€šX>þXX2X¾ÞÔòòÝ  Ýò…òÚ  Ú15Ú  Úó…óóóÝ‚™ÿ•ƒÝÔ€šX>þXXšX>þÔÔ€2X¾ÞXXšX>þÔÝ  Ýó ó€As€a€preliminary€matter,€we€note€that€the€inquiry€as€phrased€is€Ô_ÔoverbroadÔ_Ô;€itÐ ° Ðencompasses€legislative€land€use€decisions€subject€to€de€novo€review,€while€the€òòÔ_ÔGBVÔ_ÔÐ  ð ÐInternationalóó€decision€seems€to€address€only€quasi„judicial€land€use€decisions€subject€toÐ à Ðcertiorari€review.€€This€memo€addresses€only€the€latter€issue.ò ò݃—ÿÿ+v݌Р€Ð ÐŒÓ XÓó óÔ€X¾ÞXX2X¾ÞÔÝ  ÝÝ‚˜ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÔ€ôXõXX¾ÞÔÔ€šô¡ãõõôXÔÔÔÝ  ÝÝ‚˜ÿÿÿžÝÝ  ÝÔ‡šX>þXõšô¡ãÔÔ‡2X¾ÞXXšX>þÔÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÒ¸ °ÒòòÔ€Š ‹XXÔñÅñÌñÅñMEMORANDUMóóÐ ¶ ÐÌTo:à  àRules€of€Judicial€Administration€CommitteeÐ Â Ðà  àof€the€Florida€BarÌÌFrom:à  àAd€Hoc€Committee€on€òòBroward€v.€G.B.V.óó;Ð Ô $ Ðà  àEnvironmental€and€Land€Use€Law€SectionÌà  àof€the€Florida€BarÌÌRe:à  àThe€Question€Referred€by€the€Supreme€Court€inÐ ì<  Ðà  àòòBroward€County€v.€G.B.V.€International,€Inc.óóÐ òB  ÐÌDate:à  àNovember€ñÀñ30ñÀññÁñ29ñÁñ,€2001ñÆñÐ þN  ÐñÆñÐ þN  ÐßA€V ) °°xd¾E¸ pAßÐ T ÐÌà  àThe€Florida€Supreme€Court,€in€òòBroward€County€v.€G.B.V.Ð i ÐInternational,€Ltd.óó,€787€So.2d€838€(Fla.€2001),€referred€the€followingÐ o Ðquestion€to€the€Rules€of€Judicial€Administration€Committee€forÏstudy:ÌÌà8  àWhether€the€Court€should€implement€a€rule€requiringÏwritten€final€decisions€with€detailed€findings€of€fact€inÏlocal€land€use€actions€that€are€subject€to€review€in€theÏcourts.Ð Ð Ð  Ðà€ää5(#àòòId.óó,€787€So.2d€at€846.ˆÐ OŸ ÐÌà  àMany€members€of€the€Environmental€and€Land€Use€LawÏSection€of€the€Florida€Bar€practice€before€local€governments,€andÏoccasionally€seek€review€of€local€land€use€decisions€in€the€courts.€ÏThe€question€referred€by€the€Supreme€Court€is€of€great€interest€to€theÏmembership€of€the€Section.€€ÌÌà  àThe€Section€has€appointed€an€ð ðAd€Hoc€GBV€Committee,ððÏcomposed€of€attorneys€who€represent€land€owners,€developers,Ïpublic€interest€groups,€and€local€governments.€€These€attorneys€haveÏexperience€with€the€wide€variety€of€local€land€use€decisions,€whichÏrange€from€complex€planned€unit€development€rezonings€to€simpleÏbuilding€permits.€€These€attorneys€also€have€insights€concerning€theÏburdens€which€the€proposed€rule€might€place€on€local€governments,Ïcitizens€and€land€owners,€as€well€as€the€potential€benefits€to€eachÏgroup.Ð  ¯-ÿ() ÐÒ°¸ ÒñÂñÖ€4ÿÿÖñÂññÂñÖ€ ÿÿÖñÂñÑ€ÑÑ8€¾ÞXXdðXXdð8Ñà  àThe€Ad€Hoc€Committee€is€pleased€to€have€the€opportunity€to€submit€thisÐ P Ðmemorandum€on€the€question€referred€by€the€Supreme€Court.€€The€Ad€Hoc€CommitteeÏrecommends€against€the€adoption€of€a€judicial€rule,€but€recognizes€that€the€Supreme€CourtÏcan€declare€that€the€Constitutional€guarantee€of€due€process€requires€written€finalÏdecisions€with€detailed€findings€of€fact€for€local€land€use€actions.€€The€Ad€HocÏCommittee€is€divided€regarding€the€wisdom€or€necessity€of€requiring€detailed€findings€ofÏfact,€and€hopes€that€the€following€observations€will€assist€the€Rules€of€JudicialÏAdministration€Committee€and€the€Court.ÌÌò òI.à0  àThe€Ad€Hoc€Committee€Recommends€Against€Promulgation€of€a€JudicialÐ †6  ÐRule.ó óÐŒ< (#(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àDavid€L.€Jordan,€Esq.ÌÌà  àThe€Ad€Hoc€Committee€recommends€against€promulgation€of€a€judicial€ruleÏpurporting€to€regulate€procedure€in€local€governments,€because€such€a€rule€wouldÏencroach€upon€the€authority€of€the€legislative€branch.ÌÌà  àArticle€II,€ðð€3€of€the€òòFlorida€Constitutionóó€states,Ð ¶f ÐÌà8  àà ` àSection€3.€€Branches€of€government.„„€€The€powers€of€stateÏgovernment€shall€be€divided€into€legislative,€executive€and€judicialÏbranches.€€No€person€belonging€to€one€branch€shall€exercise€any€powersÏappertaining€to€either€of€the€other€branches€unless€expressly€providedÏherein.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌð ðAs€this€text€demonstrates,€each€branch€of€government€has€certain€delineated€powers€thatÏthe€other€branches€of€government€may€not€intrude€upon.ðð€€òòCoalition€for€Adequacy€andÐ ì!œ ÐFairness€in€School€Funding,€Inc.€v.€Chilesóó,€680€So.2d€400,€407€(Fla.€1996).Ð ò"¢ ÐÌà  àThe€rulemaking€authority€of€the€Supreme€Court€is€conferred€by€section€2(a)€ofÏArticle€€V€of€the€òòFlorida€Constitutionóó.Ð &´ ÐÌà8  àThe€supreme€court€shall€adopt€rules€for€the€practice€and€procedure€in€allÏcourts€including€the€time€for€seeking€appellate€review,€the€administrativeÏsupervision€of€all€courts,€the€transfer€to€the€court€having€jurisdiction€of€anyÏproceeding€when€the€jurisdiction€of€another€court€has€been€improvidentlyÐ "+Ò## Ðinvoked,€and€a€requirement€that€no€cause€shall€be€dismissed€because€anÏimproper€remedy€has€been€sought.€The€supreme€court€shall€adopt€rules€toÏallow€the€court€and€the€district€courts€of€appeal€to€submit€questions€relatingÏto€military€law€to€the€federal€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Armed€Forces€for€anÏÔ&  Ôadvisory€opinion.€Rules€of€court€may€be€repealed€by€general€law€enacted€byÏtwo„thirds€vote€of€the€membership€of€each€house€of€the€legislature.€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà€dd0(#àArt.€V,€ðð€2(a),€òòFla.€Const.Ô'h ÔóóˆÐ t $ ÐÌà  àThe€term€ð ðall€courtsðð€in€section€2(a)€does€not€include€local€governments.€€Section€1Ïof€Article€V€of€the€òòFlorida€Constitutionóó€provides,Ð †6  ÐÌà8  àThe€judicial€power€shall€be€vested€in€a€supreme€court,€district€courts€ofÏappeal,€circuit€courts€and€county€courts.€€No€other€courts€may€be€establishedÏby€the€state,€any€political€subdivision€or€any€municipality.Ð Ð Ð  Ðà€TT3(#àArt.€V,€ðð€1,€òòFla.€Const.óóˆÐ ¤T ÐÌà  àThe€òòFlorida€Constitutionóó€grants€authority€over€local€governments€to€the€legislativeÐ °` Ðbranch.€€òòWeaver€v.€Ô_ÔHeidtmanÔ_Ôóó,€245€So.2d€295€(Fla.€1st€DCA€1971).€€Local€governmentsÐ ¶f Ðhave€the€power€of€self„government,€except€as€provided€by€general€or€special€law.€€See,ÏArt.€VIII,€ðð1(f)(non„charter€counties),€ðð1(g)(charter€counties)€and€ðð2(b)(municipalities),ÏòòFla.€Const.óó€€The€Legislature€has€granted€broad€self„government€powers€to€counties,€òòSpeerÐ Èx Ðv.€Olsonóó,€367€So.2d€207€(Fla.€1978);€òòLowe€v.€Broward€Countyóó,€766€So.2d€1199€(Fla.€4thÐ Î~ ÐDCA€2000),€and€to€municipalities,€òòCity€of€Boca€Raton€v.€Stateóó,€595€So.2d€25€(Fla.€1992);Ð Ô„ Ðñ»ñòòñ»ñCity€of€Ocala€v.€Nyeñ»ñóóñ»ñ,€608€So.2d€15€(Fla.€1992).Ð ÚŠ ÐÌà  àThe€courts€have€recognized€the€authority€of€the€Legislature€to€govern€theÏprocedures€of€local€governments.€€See,€òòIzaak€Walton€League€of€America€v.€MonroeÐ ì!œ ÐCountyóó,€448€So.2d€1170€(Fla.€3d€DCA€1984)(Legislature€has€power€to€regulateÐ ò"¢ Ðdisqualification€of€county€commissioners);€and€òòVerdi€v.€Metropolitan€Dade€Countyóó,€684Ð ø#¨ ÐSo.2d€870€(Fla.€3d€DCA€1996)(Legislature€or€local€governments€can€establish€codeÏenforcement€proceedings€with€hearing€officers).€€The€Legislature€has€provided€by€generalÏlaw€that€counties€may€adopt€their€own€rules€of€procedure.€€ðð€125.01(1)(a),€òòFla.€Stat.óóÐ  'º Ð(2001).€€The€Legislature€has€also€provided€that€municipalities€may€ð ðenact€legislation€onÏany€matter€upon€which€the€Legislature€may€act,ðð€ñ½ñðð€166.021(3),€òòFla.€Stat.óó€(2001)ñ½ññ¾ñ,ñ¾ññ½ñÐ )Æ!! Ðñ½ñevidently€including€adoption€of€their€own€rules€of€procedure.ñ¿ñ€ñ¿ññ¼ñ€ðð€166.021(3),€òòFla.€Stat.óó€(2001)ñ¼ññ¿ñ.ñ¿ñ€€The€Legislature€hasÏexercised€its€authority€to€require€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€for€a€specializedÐ "+Ò## Ðtype€of€local€government€land€use€decision:€development„of„regional„impact€developmentÏorders.€€ðð€380.06(15)(c),€òòFla.€Stat.óó€(2001).Ð V ÐÌà  àJustice€Ô_ÔParienteÔ_Ôððs€dissent€stated€that€she€ð ðwould€require€written€findings,€as€wouldÏbe€required€of€any€other€administrative€agency€sitting€as€a€fact„finder.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔG.B.V.Ô_Ôóó,€787€So.2dÐ h  Ðat€849.€€The€Legislature€requires€findings€of€fact€by€administrative€agencies.€Ìðððð€120.569(2)(òòlóó)€&€(m),€120.57(1)(h),€(j),€(k)€&€(òòlóó),€and€120.574(2)(f)1.,€€òòFla.€Stat.óóÐ t $ Ð(2001).€€Counties€and€municipalities€are€not€governed€by€the€Administrative€ProcedureÏAct,€ð ðexcept€to€the€extent€they€are€expressly€made€subject€to€this€act€by€general€or€specialÏlaw€or€existing€judicial€decision.ðð€€ðð€120.52(1)(c),€òòFla.€Stat.óó€(2001).Ð †6  ÐÌà  àFor€the€reasons€stated€above,€the€Ad€Hoc€Committee€respectfully€recommendsÏagainst€the€promulgation€of€a€judicial€rule€requiring€written€final€decisions€with€detailedÏfindings€of€fact€in€local€land€use€actions.ÌÌò òÔ& H ÔII.€€Due€Processó óÐ ªZ ÐÌà  àEven€if€the€Judicial€Rules€Committee€and€the€Court€accept€the€aboveÏrecommendation,€the€Court€might€determine€in€an€appropriate€case€that€the€ConstitutionalÏguarantee€of€due€process€of€law€requires€local€governments€to€issue€written€finalÏdecisions€with€detailed€findings€of€fact€for€local€land€use€actions€that€are€subject€to€reviewÏin€the€courts.€€The€membership€of€the€Ad€Hoc€Committee€is€divided€concerning€theÏnecessity€and€the€wisdom€of€such€a€ruling.€€This€section€of€the€memorandum€is€intendedÏto€elucidate€several€viewpoints€on€the€issue.€€€ÌÌà  àò òA.à0 ` àDue€Process€Requires€Written€Findings€in€the€Review€of€Quasi„judicialÐ æ – ÐDecisions,€Including€Rezonings:€An€Applicantððs€Viewpoint.Ô'H ªÆ"Ôó óÐì!œ` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÔ_ÔT.R.Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔHainlineÔ_Ô,€Esq.ÌÌà  àUntil€the€Florida€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€in€òòBoard€of€County€Commissioners€ofÐ þ$® ÐBrevard€v.€Snyderóó,€627€So.€2d€469€(Fla.€1993),€it€was€axiomatic€that€due€process€requiresÐ &´ Ðwritten€findings€in€quasi„judicial€decisions.òòóó€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Irvine€v.€Duval€County€PlanningÐ  'º ÐCommissionóó,€466€So.€2d€357,€366€(Fla.€1st€DCA€1985)€(Zehmer,€J.,€òòdissentingóó),Ð (À  Ðòòapprovedóó,€495€So.€2d€167€(Fla.€1986),€òòadopted€after€remandóó,€504€So.€2d€1265€(Fla.€1stÐ )Æ!! ÐDCA€1986);€òòLee€County€v.€Sunbelt€Equitiesóó,€619€So.€2d€996€(Fla.€2d€DCA€1993).€€TheseÐ *Ì"" Ðauthorities€set€forth€logical€and€articulate€arguments€why€written€findings€are€essential€inÐ "+Ò## Ðquasi„judicial€decisions,€both€to€enable€the€proper€certiorari€review€of€such€decisions€andÏto€ensure€rationality€in€such€decisions.€€More€recent€authorities€have€repeated€theseÏarguments€in€the€context€of€the€òòSnyderóó€decision.€€Thomas€G.€Pelham,€òòQuasi„JudicialÐ \  ÐRezonings:€A€Commentary€on€the€Snyder€Decision€and€the€Consistency€Requirementóó,€9€J.Ð b  ÐLand€Use€&€Ô_ÔEnvtlÔ_Ô.€L.€243;€Ô_ÔT.R.Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔHainlineÔ_Ô,€Jr.€&€Steven€Ô_ÔDiebenowÔ_Ô,€òòSnyder€House€Rules?€Ð h  ÐThe€New€Deference€in€the€Review€of€Quasi„Judicial€Decisionsóó,€Fla.€B.€J.,€Nov.€2000.€Ð n  ЀÌà  àTo€summarize€these€arguments,€written€findings€are€both€the€òòò òòòóóó óóóstarting€point€andÐ z* Ðguideposts€in€a€circuit€courtððs€review€of€quasi„judicial€decisions.׃{×Ý ƒE#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€With€findings,€theÐ €0 Ðreviewing€circuit€court€ð ðcan€first€determine€whether€or€not€the€facts€found€by€the€agencyÏconstitute€lawful€grounds€for€its€action€and,€then,€determine€whether€the€evidenceÏsupports€the€Ô_Ôfinding[sÔ_Ô].ðð׃| ×Ý ƒE#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Findings€thus€benefit€a€reviewing€circuit€court€by€exposing€theÐ ’B  Ðâ âð ðdecisional€referentsðð׃}(×Ý ƒE#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€below€and€eliminating€ð ðguess„work€as€to€what€facts€alleged€wereÐ ˜H  Ðfound€not€to€be€true.ðð׃~×Ý ƒE#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€this€way,€findings€operate€to€prevent€a€reviewing€circuit€courtÐ P Ðâ âfrom€ð ðre„weighingðð€evidence€or€substituting€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€local€zoningÏboard.׃€×Ý ƒE#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Written€findings€also€operate€to€ð ðde„politicizeðð€and€promote€ð ðobjectiveÐ \  Ðrationalityðð€in€zoningòò€óódecisions.€òòóó׃€×Ý ƒE#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×òòóó€Ð b  ÐÌà  àAs€argued€in€recent€authorities,€€òòSnyderóó€has€radically€altered€appellate€review€ofÐ n  Ðquasi„judicial€decisions€by€circuit€courts:Ìà8  àà ` àFirst,€in€removing€findings€as€the€starting€point€for€appellate€review,ÏòòSnyderóó€forces€circuit€courts€to€begin€with€the€òòoutcomeóó€(denial€or€approval)Ð €0 Ðof€the€local€zoning€boardððs€vote€and€then€review€the€òòentireóó€record€for€òòanyóóÐ †6  Ðevidence€supporting€òòthe€outcomeóó.׃° ×Ý ƒE#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€By€contrast,€the€review€contemplated€inÐ Œ<  ÐòòIrvineóó€begins€with€the€òòactual€decisionóó,€including€its€reasoning€and€findings,Ð ’B  Ðfollowed€by€a€review€of€the€record€to€determine€whether€the€evidenceÏsupports€òòthe€findingsóó.׃‚h ×Ý ƒE#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ОN Ð Ð  Ðà@ee(ìà.€.€.ˆÌÌà8  àà ` àSecond,€.€.€.,€the€absence€of€written€findings€or€a€reliance€on€writtenÏfindings€necessarily€forces€circuit€courts€to€ð ðre„weighðð€evidence€becauseÏthey€are€provided€no€indication€of€what€ð ðweightðð€a€local€zoning€boardÏassigned€to€the€evidence€in€the€first€instance.€.€.€.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThird,€the€result€of€circuit€court€review€without€findings€is€thatÏrezoning€outcomes€are€afforded€great€deference.€€If€the€record€contains€òòanyóóÐ Ô„ Ðevidence€supporting€the€outcome,€it€will€most€likely€be€upheld.׃ƒ×Ý ƒE#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€As€aÐ P Ðpractical€matter,€the€requirement€that€the€evidence€be€ð ðcompetent€andÏsubstantialðð€does€not€diminish€the€deference€given€the€decision.€€The€tests€toÏdetermine€whether€evidence€is€either€competent€or€substantial€in€thisÏcontext€can€hardly€be€described€as€ð ðbright€lineðð€tests.׃„P×Ý ƒE#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€.€.€.€The€prohibitionÐ h  Ðon€ð ðre„weighingðð€evidence€clearly€makes€it€difficult€for€circuit€courts€toÏdetermine€that€evidence€is€not€ð ðsubstantial.ðð׃…h×Ý ƒE#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ðt $Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àFinally,€òòthe€result€of€this€deferential€review€is€thatóó€òòlocal€zoningÐ €0 Ðboards€actually€place€themselves€at€a€disadvantage€if€they€adopt€writtenÏfindings.óó€€If,€indeed,€a€reviewing€circuit€court€must€uphold€a€rezoningÐ Œ<  Ðdecision€if€there€is€òòanyóó€competent€and€substantial€evidence€in€the€recordÐ ’B  Ðwhich€supports€the€outcome,€then€why€would€a€local€board€ever€wish€toÏlimit€the€potential€grounds€for€its€decision€by€specifically€identifying€them?€ÏIf€a€board€relied€on€the€testimony€of€a€traffic€expert€in€opposition€to€aÏrezoning€and€ignored€the€testimony€of€a€an€environmental€expert€also€inÏâ âopposition,€why€would€it€ever€limit€its€potential€grounds€on€review€to€onlyÐ °` Ðthe€traffic€expert?€€Clearly€there€is€no€incentive€for€local€zoning€boards€toÏadopt€written€findings€explaining€the€basis€of€its€decisions.׃†×Ý ƒE#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ÐVÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌà  àÔ_ÔHainlineÔ_Ô€&€Diebenow,€òòsupraóó,€at€54„55.Ð b  ÐÌò òà  àòòóóó óIn€òòSnyderóó,€the€Florida€Supreme€Court€offered€no€explanation€for€its€holding€thatÐ n  Ðfindings€are€not€required€to€support€rezoning€decisions.׃‡0×Ý ƒE#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Court€did€not€distinguishÐ t $ Ðits€holding€in€òòIrvineóó,€which€involved€a€zoning€exception,€or€distinguish€rezonings€fromÐ z* Ðzoning€exceptions€and€other€quasi„judicial€zoning€changes€in€which€findings€have€beenÏrequired.׃ˆè×Ý ƒE#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р†6  ÐÌà  àIt€is€remarkable€that€a€requirement€held€in€òòIrvineóó€to€be€fundamental€to€the€judicialÐ ’B  Ðreview€of€quasi„judicial€decisions€may€have€been€deemed€in€òòSnyderóó€to€be€unnecessarilyÐ ˜H  Ðburdensomeòòóó.€€Prior€to€1993òòóó€(the€Florida€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€in€òòSnyderóó),€writtenÐ žN  Ðfindings€were€required€in€€all€zoning€exceptions€and€variances.€€(òòIrvineóó€confirmed€thisÐ ¤T Ðrequirement,€but,€as€demonstrated€by€the€decisions€cited€in€òòIrvineóó,€written€findings€wereÐ ªZ Ðrequired€by€several€district€courts€prior€to€òòIrvineóó.)€€During€that€time,€planningÐ °` Ðcommissions€and€zoning€boards€in€communities€across€Florida€adopted€findings€toÏsupport€their€actions€on€these€types€of€zoning€changes.€€There€is€no€data€to€suggest€thatÏthe€adoption€of€written€findings€in€the€context€for€these€zoning€changes€was€an€undueÏburden€to€communities.€€€€€Ìâ âÐ Î~ Ðà  àAs€the€Florida€Supreme€Court€held€eight€years€ago,€rezonings€are€quasi„judicialÏâ âdecisions€which€ð ðððhave€an€impact€.€.€.€on€identifiable€parties€and€interestsðððð€and€thereforeÏshould€be€subject€to€strict€scrutiny€on€review.€€òòSnyderóó,€627€So.€2d€at€474,€òòciting€SnyderÐ \  ÐBoard€of€County€Ô_ÔCommððrsÔ_Ô€of€Brevard€Countyóó,€595€So.€2d€65,€78€(Fla.€5òòthóó€DCA€1991).€€Ð b  ÐWritten€findings€are€an€essential€element€in€such€decisions,€not€only€for€the€benefit€of€theÏreviewing€courts€but€also€for€the€benefit€of€the€identifiably€affected€parties.€ÌÌà  àò òB.à0 ` àòòóóWritten€Findings€of€Fact€Should€òòNotóó€be€Required€for€LocalÐ z* ÐGovernment€Quasi„Judicial€Land€Use€Decisions:€A€Local€GovernmentÏViewpoint.ó óІ6 ` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àJoni€Armstrong€Coffey,€Esq.Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àGary€E.€Ô_ÔOldehoffÔ_Ô,€Esq.Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àSusan€L.€Ô_ÔTrevarthenÔ_Ô,€Esq.ÌÌà  àWe€have€been€asked€to€respond€to€the€Florida€Supreme€Courtððs€request€for€a€studyÏof€whether€all€quasi„judicial€land€use€decisions€of€local€governments€should€be€requiredÏto€be€based€on€written€findings€of€fact€and€expressed€in€a€written€order,€in€the€case€ofÏòòBroward€County€v.€Ô_ÔG.B.V.Ô_Ô€International,€Ltdóó.€€Specifically,€at€page€15€of€the€slip€opinion,Ð ¶f Ðthe€majority€(Harding,€Lewis,€Quince,€and€Shaw)€refers€the€following€question€to€theÏRules€of€Judicial€Administration€Committee€of€The€Florida€Bar€for€study:€ð ðWhether€theÏCourt€should€implement€a€rule€requiring€written€final€decisions€with€detailed€findings€ofÏfact€in€local€land€use€actions€that€are€subject€to€review€in€the€courts.ððÝ‚™ÿÿÿÝÔ€X¾ÞX‹Š ÔÔ€X¾ÞXXX¾ÞÔÔ€XÛ XXX¾ÞÔÔ€šX>þX XXÛÔòòÝ  ÝÝ‚™ÿÿÿNƒÝÔ€šŠrÌ‹hšX>þÔÔ€šŠrÌ‹†šŠrÌÔÔ€Š ‹†šŠrÌÔÔ€Š ‹†Š ÔóóÝ  ÝÑÈÑ׃›×Ý ƒE#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Î~ ÐÌà  àThose€who€challenge€local€land€use€actions€have€considered€the€lack€of€writtenÏfindings€and€orders€to€be€an€issue€ever€since€the€Supreme€Court,€in€òòBoard€of€CountyÐ à ÐCommissioners€v.€Snyder,óó€627€So.€2d€469€(Fla.€1993),€held€that€decisions€on€rezonings,Ð æ – Ðsite€plan€approvals,€plats€and€other€such€land€use€approvals€are€quasi„judicial€in€nature,Ïsimilar€to€variances€and€special€exceptions.€€That€opinion€recommended,€but€specificallyÏâ âdid€not€require,€that€local€governments€provide€written€findings€of€fact€for€such€quasi„Ð ø#¨ Ðjudicial€actions,€despite€the€fact€that€the€only€method€to€challenge€these€decisions€was€viaÏpetition€for€writ€of€certiorari€on€the€record€below.€€Ìâ âÌà  àIn€short,€we€conclude€that€the€courts€should€not€require€detailed€findings€of€fact€inÏlocal€quasi„judicial€land€use€actions€because€doing€so€would€inevitably€limit€localÏdiscretion€to€choose€from€a€range€of€legally€permissible€options€and€interfere€with€theÏability€of€local€officials€to€represent€their€constituents,€without€necessarily€improving€theÏquality€of€decision€making.€€We€also€conclude€that€such€a€requirement€would€complicate,Ïnot€streamline,€circuit€court€review,€and€increase€the€likelihood€of€violation€of€separationÏof€powers.€€The€records€of€most€local€land€use€decisions€are€sufficient€to€guide€circuitÏcourt€review,€especially€with€the€assistance€provided€by€the€local€government€attorneyððsÏresponse€to€the€petition€for€certiorari.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€proper€response€toÏthe€few€cases€where€the€record€is€not€sufficient€is€for€the€court€to€grant€certiorari€to€theÏpetitioner,€quash€the€decision€and€remand€the€matter€to€the€local€government.ÌÌà0  àà0` (#(#àò ò1.€€Requiring€findings€of€fact€would€limit€the€exercise€of€discretion€byÐ ªZ Ðlocal€land€use€authorities€and€interfere€with€democratic€representationÏof€their€constituents.ó óжf` (#` (# ÐÌà  àRequiring€local€zoning€authorities€to€articulate€the€precise€factual€basis€for€everyÏzoning€decision€would€necessarily€circumscribe€their€discretion€to€make€decisions€withinÏa€range€of€perfectly€legal€choices.€€Zoning€boards€are€quasi„judicial;€they€are€not€judicialÏor€ministerial.€€Their€members€are€expected€to€bring€to€these€collegial€bodies€theirÏbackground€in€and€knowledge€of€the€community,€as€well€as€an€experience„based€vision€ofÏhow€their€constituents€want€their€communities€to€look€and€function.€€Indeed,€land€useÏauthorities€are€the€peopleððs€elected€representatives€(or€their€direct€appointees),€chosen€toÏeffectuate€the€peopleððs€vision€of€what€the€community€should€look€like.€€Florida€courtsÏhave€recognized€the€matter€of€local€land€use€as€one€integral€to€the€functioning€of€ourÏrepresentative€democracy.€€òòSee€Cross€Key€Waterways€v.€Askewóó,€351€So.€2d€1062€(Fla.€1òòstóóÐ ø#¨ ÐDCA€1977),€òòÔ_ÔaffððdÔ_Ôóó,€372€So.€2d€913€(Fla.€1978)€(land€use€issue€ð ðaffects€the€right€of€accessÐ þ$® Ðto€governmentð"ðthe€right€of€the€people€effectively€ððto€instruct€their€representatives€and€toÐ &´ Ðpetition€for€redress€of€grievancesððð!ð€on€which€other€cherished€rights€ultimately€depend.ðð)€€Ð  'º ÐÌà  àThe€task€of€land€use€decision„making€requires€an€exercise€of€discretionaryÏjudgment€that€is€not€completely€susceptible€of€detailed€factual€explication.€€Indeed,Ïforcing€a€precise,€mathematical€delineation€of€every€fact€about€a€communityððsÐ "+Ò## Ðcharacteristics€to€justify€a€particular€decision€would€fly€in€the€face€of€the€exercise€ofÏdiscretionary€judgment.€€It€effectively€would€reduce€zoning€actions€to€the€level€ofÏministerial€permitting.€€It€would€also€truncate€the€ability€of€arguably€the€most€democraticÏlevel€of€government€to€exercise€the€scope€and€direction€of€judgment€allowed€by€law,Ïthereby€expressing€constituent€preferences.ÌÌà  àTo€allow€for€the€exercise€of€discretion€in€land€use,€and€to€avoid€usurpation€of€thatÏrole€by€the€courts,€the€law€has€long€recognized€that€zoning€boards€are€entitled€to€chooseÏfrom€a€wide€range€of€legal€choices€that€zoning€decision€that€will€implement€theÏcommunityððs€vision.€€òòSee€Board€of€County€Commissioners€of€Brevard€County€v.€Snyder,óóÐ †6  Ð627€So.€2d€469€(Fla.€1993)€(ð ðð8ðan€application€for€rezoning€appeals€at€least€in€part€to€localÐ Œ<  Ðofficialsðð€discretion€to€accept€or€reject€the€applicantððs€argument€that€change€is€desirableðð),Ïòòquoting€Lee€County€v.€Sunbelt€Equities€II,€Limited€Partnershipóó,€619€So.€2d€996,€1005„06Ð ˜H  Ð(Fla.€2d€DCA€1993);€òòMetropolitan€Dade€County€v.€Blumenthalóó,€675€So.€2d€598€(Fla.€3dÐ žN  ÐDCA€1996)€(ð ðð8ð€when€the€facts€are€such€as€to€give€the€County€Commission€a€choiceÐ ¤T Ðbetween€alternatives,€it€is€up€to€the€County€Commission€to€make€that€choice,€not€theÏcircuit€court.ðð)€€It€is€essential€to€that€range€of€lawful€choice€that€land€use€authorities€beÏable€to€bring€to€bear€their€background€knowledge€of€the€community,€their€knowledge€ofÏpast€decisions€in€the€area,€their€vision€of€the€future,€and€other€intangible€considerations.€ÏThese€intangibles€have€nothing€to€do€with€whether€a€particular€decision€is€lawful,€butÏeverything€to€do€with€whether€it€is€the€right€choice€for€a€neighborhood€or€the€largerÏcommunity,€or€in€the€words€of€the€òòSunbelt€Equitiesóó€court,€ð ðdesirable.ððÐ Î~ ÐÌà  àThis€exercise€of€discretion€is€important€to€local€authorities€in€every€aspect€of€theirÏzoning€decision„making,€because€most€decisions€necessarily€carry€with€them€some€degreeÏof€policy„shaping.€€Although€òòSnyderóó€and€òòMartin€County€v.€Ô_ÔYusemÔ_Ôóó,€690€So.€2d€1288€(Fla.Ð æ – Ð1997),€made€it€clear€that€legislative€activities€such€as€comprehensive€planning€are€policyÏformulation€while€zoning€actions€are€policy€implementation,€that€distinction€does€notÏreduce€the€zoning€action€to€a€mere€ministerial€act.€The€decision€to€rezone€a€large€parcel€ofÏland,€while€quasi„judicial,€may€involve€an€exercise€of€significant€discretion.€€For€example,Ïa€property€may€currently€be€zoned€agricultural€allowing€one€dwelling€unit€per€ten€acres,Ïwhile€the€comprehensive€plan€may€allow€a€maximum€of€up€to€ten€units€per€acre€over€theÏtwenty„year€planning€period.€€The€appropriate€zoning€for€the€property€in€year€two€of€thatÏplanning€period€may€very€well€be€different€from€the€proper€zoning€in€year€nineteen,€andÏthe€decision€at€either€time€will€be€heavily€influenced€by€the€development€of€neighboringÏproperties€and€availability€of€public€facilities.€Ð "+Ò## Їà  àòòSnyderóó€recognizes€that€comprehensive€plans€are€long€term€documents€for€theÐ P Ðfuture,€and€that€there€is€not€an€automatic€right€to€the€most€intense€zoning€permitted€underÏthe€future€land€use€category€for€a€parcel€of€land.€€Deciding€which€level€of€zoning€isÏappropriate€Ô  Ôòòtodayóó€involves€determinations€of€compatibility€with€the€present€developmentÐ b  Ðof€neighboring€properties,€with€the€governmental€plan€for€development€of€facilities€andÏservices€in€the€area,€and€with€environmental€constraints€on€a€particular€property.€€TheseÏjudgments€are€definitely€not€ministerial,€and€may€result€in€significant€impacts€on€theÏcharacter€and€future€development€of€a€local€government.€€They€are€best€made€by€thoseÏwho€are€locally€elected€or€appointed€to€deal€with€such€issues.€€They€are€more€accountableÏto€the€citizens€who€will€be€most€affected€by€these€decisions€than€a€circuit€court€judge.€ÏIndeed,€even€a€decision€on€a€minor€amendment€to€a€site€plan€or€plat,€seemingly€almostÏministerial€in€nature,€may€nonetheless€have€significant€precedential€or€cumulative€importÏfor€the€future€of€a€neighborhood€and€therefore€requires€the€exercise€of€consideredÏjudgment.€€ÌÌà  à€The€very€requirement€of€factual€findings€may€also€impose€reservations€on€the€partÏof€board€members€trying€to€reach€a€decision.€€For€example,€although€a€board€likely€couldÏput€together€some€set€of€facts€to€defend€a€particular€decision,€no€set€of€factual€findingsÏcould€truthfully€include€the€kinds€of€perfectly€lawful€but€intangible€considerations€that€goÏinto€discretionary€decision„making.€€Further,€in€some€instances,€forcing€factual€detail€willÏherd€decision„makers€into€the€choice€with€the€easily€Ô_ÔarticulableÔ_Ô€defense,€even€though€theirÏknowledge€of€the€community€suggests€a€different€or€new€kind€of€choice€that€has€not€beenÏtried€before.€€Boards€may€also€tend€to€favor€decisions€based€on€factual€grounds€that€aÏcourt€has€upheld€in€a€prior€decision,€even€though€the€choice€is€not€the€most€appropriate€inÏthe€instance€at€hand.€€Such€pressures€clearly€limit€the€exercise€of€lawful€discretion.ÌÌà0  àà0` (#(#àò ò2.€€Requiring€findings€of€fact€complicates€the€task€of€the€circuit€courts,Ð ì!œ Ðand€increases€the€risk€of€judicial€usurpation€of€the€land€use€decision„¼making€role€in€violation€of€the€separation€of€powers€between€theÏjudicial€and€executive€branches.ó óÐþ$®` (#` (# ÐÌà  àRequiring€detailed€findings€of€fact€would€require€reviewing€courts€to€invest€muchÏmore€than€an€overview€of€the€record€to€ascertain€the€legality€of€the€decision€under€review.€ÏThe€court€would€be€required€to€review€each€and€every€factual€finding€to€ensure€that€theÏrecord€supports€individual€facts,€as€opposed€to€merely€determining€whether€the€recordÏsupports€the€overall€decision.€€Although€a€detailed€outline€of€specific€grounds€for€the€landÐ "+Ò## Ðuse€decision€under€review€might€initially€seem€to€simplify€the€circuit€courtððs€role,€JusticeÏGrimes€in€òòÔ_ÔGBVÔ_Ô€Internationalóó€accurately€assessed€such€as€requirement€as€one€ripe€forÐ V Ðadditional€litigation€arguments:€€ð ðDoes€the€order€setting€out€the€findings€of€fact€accuratelyÏreflect€the€grounds€articulated€by€the€zoning€board?ðð€€ð ðIs€every€fact€supported€by€theÏrecord,€or€do€other€facts€call€that€particular€fact€into€question?ðð€€ð ðWhat€if€one€of€the€factsÏlisted€is€not€supported€by€the€record,€but€the€remaining€facts€would€have€supported€theÏdecision?ðð€ð ðEven€though€the€record€as€a€whole€supports€the€decision,€is€the€failure€toÏpoint€out€a€crucial€fact,€without€which€the€decision€could€not€have€been€reached,€alwaysÏfatal€to€the€decision?ðð€ð ðWhat€if€the€zoning€board€members€agree€on€a€decision,€but€cannotÏagree€on€the€factual€basis€that€persuaded€differing€members€to€a€single€result?ðð€€ÌÌà  àMoreover,€a€court€reviewing€a€zoning€decision€for€the€sufficiency€of€factualÏfindings€could€no€longer€defer€even€to€facts€of€record,€if€they€have€not€been€expresslyÏarticulated€by€the€zoning€authority.€€Therefore,€even€though€the€zoning€boards€areÏsupposed€to€have€wide€discretion€within€the€applicable€legal€bounds,€a€requirement€ofÏspecific€findings€will€not€allow€the€circuit€court€to€affirm€if€the€zoning€boardððs€decision€isÏright€for€the€wrong€reason€(the€Tipsy€Coachman€rule).€€òòSee€Suburban€Medical€Hospital,Ð °` ÐInc.€v.€Ô_ÔDepððtÔ_Ô€of€Health€and€Rehabilitative€Servicesóó,€600€So.€2d€1195,€1197€n.3€(Fla.€3dÐ ¶f ÐDCA€1992)€(holding€ð ðwe€see€no€reason€not€to€apply€to€our€review€of€agency€action€theÏfamiliar€adage€that€a€trial€court€will€be€affirmed€if€correct€for€any€reason€appearing€in€theÏrecordðð);€òòsee€also€Springfield€v.€Ô_ÔDepððtÔ_Ô€of€Environmental€Protectionóó,€648€So.€2d€802€(Fla.Ð Èx Ð1òòstóó€DCA€1994).€€In€this€way,€these€boards€with€supposedly€wide€discretion€to€act€in€theÐ Î~ Ðpublic€interest€are€effectively€reduced€to€much€more€limited€discretion.ÌÌà  àFurthermore,€a€findings€of€fact€requirement€necessarily€limits€the€deference€aÏcircuit€court€can€afford€a€zoning€decision.€€Today,€a€reviewing€court€may€read€the€recordÏand€decide€that€the€overall€substantial€competent€evidence€would€support€an€ultimateÏfactual€conclusion,€such€as€the€compatibility€of€a€proposed€site€plan€or€rezoning€with€theÏneighborhood.€€Under€a€requirement€of€factual€findings,€the€reviewing€court€would€haveÏto€examine€the€record€to€assess€the€evidentiary€support€for€each€finding.€€Under€this€typeÏof€non„deferential€analysis,€the€temptation€to€reach€a€different€factual€conclusion€may€beÏeven€greater€than€it€is€today.€€If€a€court€does€reach€a€different€factual€conclusion,€it€willÏhave€violated€the€separation€of€powers€doctrine€by€encroaching€on€the€exclusiveÏjurisdiction€of€the€local€governing€and€land€use€bodies.Ìâ âÐ *Ì"" Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àò ò3.€€The€requirement€of€written€findings€of€fact€will€not€necessarilyÐ P Ðâ âincrease€the€quality€of€decision„making€or€the€quality€of€circuit€courtÏreview.ó óÐ\ ` (#` (# ÐÌà  àJustice€Ô_ÔParienteÔ_Ôððs€òòÔ_ÔGBVÔ_Ô€Internationalóó€opinion€places€on€local€land€use€authorities€€aÐ h  Ðpart€of€the€blame€for€the€persistent€tendency€of€the€circuit€courts€to€reweigh€the€evidenceÏand€substitute€their€judgment€for€that€of€local€authorities.€€The€concern€is€that€localÏauthorities€do€not€spell€out€for€the€courts€the€factual€basis€for€their€decisions,€but€insteadÏrely€on€the€reviewing€courts€to€sort€through€weighty€records€for€evidence€sufficient€toÏsustain€what€the€authorities€do.€€The€apparent€hope€underlying€the€Justiceððs€request€forÏmandatory€factual€findings€is€that€a€good€explanation€will€constrain€the€circuit€courtsððÏtendency€to€look€for€evidence€that€would€support€a€different€result,€rather€than€simplyÏdetermining€whether€the€evidence€supports€the€decision€reached€by€the€local€authority€asÏrequired€by€certiorari€review€standards.ÌÌà  àThe€practicality€of€that€hope€is€open€to€question.€€In€several€recent€cases€decidedÏby€the€Supreme€Court,€the€circuit€court€opinions€laid€out€on€their€face€facts€that€wouldÏhave€supported€the€land€use€decision€if€the€court€had€not€Ô_ÔreweighedÔ_Ô€them€against€theÏcountervailing€facts.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔDusseauÔ_Ô€v.€Metropolitan€Dade€Countyóó,€794€So.€2d€1270€(Fla.Ð ¼l Ð2001);€òòFlorida€Power€&€Light€v.€City€of€Ô_ÔDaniaÔ_Ôóó,€761€So.€2d€1089€(Fla.€2000).€€In€thoseÐ Âr Ðcases,€the€governmental€parties,€represented€by€experienced€legal€counsel,€had€placed€theÏfactual€record€basis€for€their€clientsðð€decisions€before€the€circuit€court.€€Even€so,€theÏcircuit€courts€were€unable€to€resist€revisiting€the€decisions€under€review,€and€substitutingÏtheir€own€judgment€for€that€of€the€local€authority.€€Findings€of€fact€will€not€assure€aÏdifferent€result€as€long€as€circuit€courts€decide€to€undertake€their€own€review€of€theÏcompeting€record€evidence.ÌÌà  àJust€as€findings€of€fact€would€not€assure€a€better€circuit€court€review,€so€theyÏwould€also€not€guarantee€a€better€local€land€use€decision.ò ò€€ó óAs€Justice€Scalia€so€scathinglyÐ ø#¨ Ðput€it€in€òòLucas€v.€South€Carolina€Coastal€Councilóó,€505€U.S.€1003€(1992),€writtenÐ þ$® Ðgovernmental€findings€are€not€necessarily€a€guarantee€of€improved€decision„making.€€InÏevaluating€whether€written€legislative€findings€established€that€a€regulation€was€benefitÏconferring€(so€that€compensation€would€be€required)€or€harm€preventing€(and€thusÏrequiring€no€compensation),€he€asserted€that€the€distinction€is€in€the€eye€of€the€beholder.€Ïð ðSince€such€a€justification€can€be€formulated€in€practically€every€case,€this€amounts€to€aÏtest€of€whether€the€legislature€has€a€stupid€staff.€We€think€the€Takings€Clause€requiresÐ "+Ò## Ðcourts€to€do€more€than€insist€upon€artful€harm„preventing€characterizations.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€pageÐ P Ð1026,€note€12.ÌÌà  àIn€a€similar€way,€written€findings€are€no€guarantee€of€good€decision„making€inÏzoning€or€other€quasi„judicial€actions.€€A€proficient€draftsman€may€weave€findings€thatÏobscure,€rather€than€clarify,€a€poor€yet€minimally€lawful€decision.€€In€contrast,€a€lessÏsophisticated€local€government,€or€a€successful€citizen€objector€who€is€asked€to€submitÏproposed€findings,€may€not€adequately€explicate€the€sound€basis€for€a€good€decision.€€AsÏa€result,€on€the€same€set€of€facts,€the€ultimate€judgment€on€these€kinds€of€decisions€mayÏwell€be€determined€by€who€gets€to€draft€the€findings€supporting€them€as€much€as€by€theÏmerits.€ÌÌà  àThis€risk€is€particularly€great€when€the€land€use€authority€is€dealing€with€criteriaÏthat€require€judgment€calls.€€Examples€of€ð ðjudgment€callðð€criteria,€found€in€state€statutesÏand€in€most€local€codes€of€ordinances,€include€consistency€with€the€comprehensive€planÏand€compatibility€with€the€neighborhood.€€Nothing€in€a€findings€of€fact€requirement€willÏcause€a€better€or€wiser€decision€under€those€criteria,€but€the€ability€of€a€local€governmentÏto€persuade€a€court€to€uphold€a€judgment€call€decision€will€depend€greatly€on€how€wellÏthe€findings€of€fact€are€drafted,€even€if€an€ample€record€exists€to€sustain€a€good€decision.€ÏAnd€even€if€there€are€clear€written€findings€and€conclusions,€an€applicant€who€disagreesÏwith€the€local€decision€maker€will€find€a€way€to€cast€doubt€under€judgment€call€criteria.ÌÌà0  àà0` (#(#àò ò4.€Most€records€of€local€land€use€decisions€contain€sufficient€writtenÐ Ô„ Ðdescriptions€of€the€evidence€supporting€the€decision€to€guide€the€circuitÏcourts.ó óÐà` (#` (# ÐÌà  àThe€first€thing€to€understand€about€òòÔ_ÔGBVÔ_Ô€Internationalóó€is€that€it€is€not€typical€of€theÐ ì!œ Ðlocal€government€quasi„judicial€land€use€decision.€€The€flex€unit€provisions€of€BrowardÏCountyððs€Land€Use€Plan€and€Code€are€quite€unusual.€€As€applied€here,€they€result€in€theÏproject€being€able€to€use€the€platting€process€to€nearly€double€its€density€and€impactsÏwithout€a€comprehensive€plan€amendment.€€Also,€the€dispositive€issues€on€certiorariÏreview€in€the€circuit€court€were€estoppel€and€misrepresentation,€rather€than€any€issueÏregarding€the€criteria€for€perimeter€plat€approval€or€the€applicantsðð€ability€to€satisfy€them.€ÏFinally,€the€County€Commission€made€a€decision€that€was€not€urged€by€the€applicantððsÏrequest,€the€staffððs€recommendation€or€a€third€party,€and€therefore€did€not€have€the€benefitÏof€supporting€written€submissions€from€any€of€these€interests.€€For€all€of€these€reasons,€itÐ "+Ò## Ðis€inadvisable€to€generalize€from€the€facts€of€this€case€in€deciding€whether€writtenÏfindings€of€fact€or€orders€should€be€required€in€all€local€land€use€decisions.ÌÌà  àThe€typical€procedures€for€considering€quasi„judicial€land€use€decisions€include€aÏgreat€deal€of€written€evidence.€€Normally,€a€written€application€is€submitted€to€the€localÏdecision„making€body,€supported€by€an€oral€presentation€from€the€applicant.€€TheÏapplication€may€have€been€revised€in€the€process€of€being€reviewed€by€the€governmentððsÏstaff€and/or€an€advisory€board.€€Staff€prepares€a€written€report€analyzing€the€applicationÏand€usually€providing€a€written€recommendation€for€approval,€approval€with€specifiedÏconditions€or€denial.€€More€than€one€staff€report€may€be€prepared€for€the€various€steps€ofÏthe€review€process.€€Staff€also€usually€makes€an€oral€presentation€to€the€decision„makingÏbody.€€Finally,€an€ordinance€or€resolution€is€usually€necessary€to€approve€the€application,Ïand€a€draft€of€this€document€is€prepared€for€the€decision€making€body€prior€to€the€hearing.ÌÌà  àAt€the€hearing,€in€addition€to€presentations€from€applicant€and€staff,€the€decision„¼making€body€usually€hears€input€from€the€public€and€from€any€third€parties€such€as€aÏneighbor€or€environmental€group.€€The€members€of€the€body€discuss€the€application,€askÏquestions,€and€express€their€individual€positions€on€the€application.€€Finally,€a€vote€isÏtaken€and€the€application€is€either€approved€or€denied,€usually€in€line€with€the€positionÏurged€(and€documented)€by€the€applicant,€staff€or€a€third€party.€€Any€additional€conditionsÏon€approval€of€the€application€will€be€reflected€in€the€motion€or€second,€and€in€theÏordinance€or€resolution€of€approval.€€The€hearing€is€memorialized€in€the€minutes€of€theÏdecision„making€body,€in€audio€or€video€tapes€of€the€meeting,€and€possibly€in€a€transcriptÏprepared€by€a€court€reporter€if€one€is€ordered€by€the€applicant.ÌÌà  àIf€a€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari€is€filed,€then€the€petitioner€must€assemble€theÏrecord€appendix€and€identify€the€reasons€why€the€decision€should€be€quashed.€€If€an€orderÏto€show€cause€is€issued,€then€the€government€must€prepare€a€response€showing€the€courtÏhow€the€decision€is€supported€by€competent€substantial€evidence€and€meets€the€otherÏrequirements€of€certiorari€review.€€Sometimes,€a€third€party€participates€in€the€litigation,Ïand€the€circuit€court€will€have€the€benefit€of€a€third€written€brief€and€argument€on€theÏrecord.ÌÌà  àThus,€in€the€vast€majority€of€cases,€there€are€a€variety€of€sources€of€writtenÏevidence€providing€a€basis€for€the€quasi„judicial€decision.€€Rather€than€òòSnyderóó€acting€asÐ *Ì"" Ðan€incentive€not€to€provide€any€basis€for€a€decision,€as€feared€by€Justice€Ô_ÔParienteÔ_Ô€andÐ "+Ò## Ðauthors€Ô_ÔHainlineÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔDiebenowÔ_Ô,€it€actually€provides€an€incentive€to€provide€as€manyÏbases€as€possible€to€support€the€result€being€urged.€€There€is€no€requirement€that€a€landÏuse€decision€be€based€on€one€factor€only€and,€in€fact,€such€decisions€often€involve€aÏnumber€of€competing€concerns.€€The€staff€reports,€applicant€justifications€and€otherÏwritten€input€are€often€necessary,€independent€of€any€judicial€review€concerns,€to€allowÏfor€a€group€decision€making€process€by€elected€or€appointed€officials€in€the€publicÏhearing€on€sometimes€complex€and€arcane€land€use€issues.ÌÌà  àMoreover,€before€the€circuit€court€decides€whether€to€grant€certiorari,€it€isÏpresented€with€a€written€argument€from€the€governmentððs€attorney€justifying€the€decisionÏand€pointing€out€the€competent€substantial€evidence€in€the€record.€€€Furthermore,€theÏpetitioner€has€a€duty€of€candor€to€the€court,€and€is€therefore€obligated€to€point€out€theÏevidence€supporting€the€decision€and€argue€why€it€is€not€competent€or€substantial.€€It€isÏsimply€not€accurate€to€state€that,€without€a€written€order€or€findings€of€fact,€circuit€courtsÏare€forced€to€comb€the€record€and€weigh€the€evidence€themselves€in€order€to€carry€outÏcertiorari€review.ÌÌà  àIn€the€unusual€cases€where€there€truly€is€no€evidence€of€record€for€the€circuit€courtÏto€review€or€where€the€attorneys€fail€to€bring€that€evidence€to€the€courtððs€attention,€thenÏcertiorari€should€be€granted€based€on€the€lack€of€competent€substantial€evidenceÏsupporting€the€decision,€and€the€matter€should€be€remanded€to€the€local€government€forÏreconsideration€and€for€the€preparation€of€such€a€record.€€But€the€unusual€cases€should€notÏbe€used€to€justify€a€burdensome,€costly€and€unnecessary€requirement€for€all€quasi„judicialÏland€use€decisions,€as€Justice€Wells€points€out€in€his€concurring€opinion€in€òòÔ_ÔGBVÔ_ÔÐ ÚŠ ÐInternationalóó.Ð à ÐÌà  àImposing€the€findings€of€fact€requirement€suggested€by€the€òòÔ_ÔGBVÔ_Ô€InternationalóóÐ ì!œ Ðdissenters€will€increase€costs€and€delays€because€additional€staff€and€applicant€effort€willÏhave€to€be€devoted€to€the€drafting€of€(and€argument€over)€the€proposed€written€order€andÏfindings€of€fact.€€If€the€drafts€have€not€perfectly€predicted€what€the€decision€maker€findsÏand€does€at€the€hearing,€or€if€proposed€findings€are€not€prepared€before€the€hearing,€thenÏthe€matter€may€have€to€come€back€to€the€decision€maker€at€a€future€meeting€for€adoptionÏof€the€final€written€order€and€findings.€€These€findings€and€orders€will€surely€open€upÏmany€new€bases€for€litigation,€without€necessarily€improving€the€substance€of€localÏdecision„making.ÌÐ "+Ò## Ðà  àPractical€and€legal€reasons€limit€local€governmentsðð€ability€to€prepare€and€submitÏto€the€courts€detailed€findings€of€fact€to€support€every€quasi„judicial€land€use€decision.ÌÌà  àFor€most€local€governments€in€Florida,€zoning€and€other€quasi„judicial€decisionsÏare€reached€by€a€collegial€body.€€Several€hearings€are€often€scheduled€for€the€sameÏmeeting,€sometimes€held€at€night€to€accommodate€working€citizens€or€follow€statutoryÏmandates€for€public€participation,€and€many€hours€can€be€consumed€in€the€public€hearingÏpart€of€the€process.€€Meetings€can€run€late€into€the€night.ÌÌà  àUnlike€a€single€judge€or€hearing€officer€system,€the€local€collegial€board€is€subjectÏto€certain€constraints€that€would€make€the€preparation€and€approval€of€thorough€findingsÏof€fact€a€difficult€task.€€For€example,€the€individual€members€of€a€collegial€body€may€eachÏhave€very€different€reasons€for€voting€to€grant€or€deny€an€application.€€Indeed,€part€of€theÏreason€different€people€are€elected€or€appointed€to€boards€is€to€bring€differentÏbackgrounds€and€visions€for€the€future€to€bear€on€decisions.€€Requiring€them€to€articulateÏand€agree€on€a€single€factual€basis€for€approving€a€decision€may€be€exceedingly€difficult.€ÏThe€U.S.€Supreme€Court€often€has€difficulty€with€this€task,€as€evidenced€by€theÏmultiplicity€of€opinions€it€issues€in€close€land€use€cases;€a€board€of€elected€or€appointedÏcitizen€volunteers€can€hardly€be€expected€to€do€better.€€Further,€the€board€members€areÏsubject€to€the€Government€in€the€Sunshine€Law,€which€would€prohibit€them€fromÏcirculating€discussion€drafts€or€talking€about€the€matter€between€meetings€as€judges€areÏpermitted€to€do.ÌÌà  àIf€the€proposed€order€and€findings€are€not€prepared€ahead€of€time€or€must€beÏrevised€based€on€the€boardððs€discussion,€and€those€documents€are€brought€back€to€theÏboard€at€a€future€meeting€where€a€board€member€may€be€absent,€other€proceduralÏdifficulties€and€delays€arise.€€Must€the€same€board€members€vote€for€the€final€findings€ofÏfact€as€originally€voted€for€the€item€at€the€earlier€meeting?ÌÌà  àToday,€zoning€boards€issue€decisions€promptly€after€the€public€hearing,€while€theÏevidence€is€still€fresh€in€their€minds.€€Were€there€a€findings€of€fact€requirement,€theÏdecision€could€be€delayed€while€appropriate€findings€were€prepared€or€proposed€findingsÏrevised,€to€reflect€the€boardððs€decision€after€public€hearing.€€Because€citing€as€manyÏfactual€bases€as€possible€would€provide€the€greatest€level€of€security€that€a€decision€wouldÏâ âbe€upheld,€and€because€local€government€staffs€would€be€preparing€such€documentationÐ *Ì"" Ðfor€several€decisions€at€once€in€fast„growing€communities,€considerable€time€could€beÏrequired€to€satisfy€a€findings€of€fact€requirement.Ìâ âÌà  àThe€additional€staff€time€and€expense€devoted€to€drafting€proposed€findings€of€factÏ(and€arguing€over€them€with€the€applicant€or€a€third€party)€places€a€burden€on€localÏgovernment€taxpayers€without€ensuring€a€commensurate€benefit€in€the€quality€ofÏdecisionmaking.€€Moreover,€such€a€process€certainly€would€not€favor€the€unrepresentedÏapplicant€or€objector.€€Sophisticated€applicants€would€likely€prepare€and€submit€to€staffÏproposed€findings,€either€before€or€during€staffððs€presentation.€€Staffs€may€also€prepare€aÏlaundry€list€of€boilerplate€findings€that€can€be€adapted€to€a€particular€decision.€€CitizensÏwho€are€neither€sophisticated€enough€to€prepare€their€own€proposed€findings€nor€wealthyÏenough€to€hire€someone€to€do€it€for€them,€would€be€at€a€distinct€disadvantage.€€Even€inÏthe€early€stages€of€the€application€process,€sophisticated€applicants€will€use€proposedÏfindings€to€seek€to€persuade€professional€staff€to€issue€a€favorable€recommendation.€€TheÏtactic€might€work,€not€only€because€of€the€convenience€to€staff,€but€also€because€theÏwritten€word€is€sometimes€the€most€convincing,€even€when€submitted€months€in€advanceÏof€the€actual€hearing.ÌÌà  àBased€on€the€foregoing,€the€best€course€of€action€is€to€not€ñ·ññ§ñañ§ññ©ñddñ©ññ©ñ€newñ©ññ©ñ€proceduralñ©ññ©ñ€ñ©ññ·ñrequireñ¸ññ©ñmenñ©ññ«ñtsñ«ññ¸ññ¹ñ€written€findingsÏof€factñ¹ñ€for€local€government€ñºñland€use€ñºñdecisions,€whether€in€a€judicñ¯ñial€rule€ñ¯ññ°ññ¯ñrñ¯ññ°ññ±ñor€in€a€judicialÏinterpretation€of€ñ±ññ²ññ±ñthñ±ññ²ññ³ñconñ³ññµññ´ñtñ´ññµññ³ñsñ³ññ¶ñtñ¶ññ³ñitutional€due€process.ñ³ñÌÌò òà  àC.à0 ` àWhether€Local€Governments€Must€Provide€Findings€of€Fact€for€€LandÐ Ô„ ÐUse€Decisions:€€A€Citizenððs€Position.ó ó€€ÐÚŠ` (#` (# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ_ÔTerrellÔ_Ô€K.€Ô_ÔArlineÔ_Ô,€Esq.Ð (#(# Ѐà  àà ` àÐ æ – Ðà  àòòIntroductionóó.€€There€are€actually€two€groups€of€ð ðcitizensðð€affected€by€local€land€useÐ ì!œ Ðdecisions.€€The€developer,€whose€project€is€being€evaluated€by€the€local€government,€andÏthe€neighbor,€who€has€to€live€with€the€project€once€itððs€constructed.€€While€their€personalÏmotivations€may€differ,€both€groups€are€entitled€to€seek€and€receive€meaningful€judicialÏreview€of€local€land€use€decisions€that€may€affect€their€interests.€€This€important€goal€ofÏeffective€review€should€guide€the€Florida€Supreme€Court€in€its€evaluation€of€the€questionÏposed€in€òòBroward€County€v.€Ô_ÔG.B.V.Ô_Ô€International,€Ltd.€et€al.óó,€787€So.€2d€838€(Fla.€2001),Ð (À  Ðwhich€is€whether€written,€detailed€findings€of€fact€should€be€provided€for€all€local€landÏuse€actions.€à ` àÐ *Ì"" ÐÐ "+Ò## Ðà  àTo€answer€the€question€and€promote€judicial€review,€the€Court€should€be€remindedÏthat€it€has€helped€to€create€a€situation€where€there€are€two,€wholly€different€procedures€toÏreview€local€land€use€decisions,€at€least€as€it€regards€consistency€with€the€localÏcomprehensive€plan.€€Developers€who€are€òòdenied€permitsóó€use€one€system.€€They€must€fileÐ b  Ða€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari.€€Review€is€on€the€record€prepared€at€the€local€level€andÏexamination€by€the€district€courts€is€limited.€€Neighbors€who€oppose€the€òòissuance€ofÐ n  Ðpermitsóó€use€another€system.€€They€get€a€trial€de€novo€under€Section€163.3215,€òòFla.€Stat.óóÐ t $ Ð(2001).€€This€difference€in€the€process€of€review€of€local€land€use€decisions€is€furtherÏcompounded€by€the€fact€that€it€is€not€entirely€clear€how€issues€of€consistency€with€localÏland€use€regulations€are€to€be€reviewed.€€ÌÌà  àTherefore,€while€every€citizen,€the€developer€and€neighbor€alike€may€benefit€fromÏthe€requirement€that€local€governments€include€written€ð ðfindings€of€factðð€to€support€theirÏland€use€actions,€until€Florida€simplifies€the€different€systems€of€judicial€review€of€localÏland€use€decisions,€the€Court€will€accomplish€little€to€really€ease€the€plight€of€the€party„¼litigants€below€by€just€requiring€findings€of€fact€for€local€development€orders.ÌÌà  àòòShould€findings€of€fact€be€requiredóó?€€A€system€of€judicial€review€that€employs€tooÐ ¶f Ðmuch€deference€to€a€local€governmentððs€land€use€decision€restricts€the€ability€of€both€theÏdeveloper€and€the€neighbor€to€obtain€meaningful€consideration€by€the€judiciary.€€BothÏgroups€certainly€benefitted€from€the€demise€of€the€ð ðfairly€debatable€standard€of€reviewððÏoccasioned€by€òòSnyder€v.€Board€of€County€Commissioners€of€Brevard€Countyóó,€627€So.2dÐ Î~ Ð469€(Fla.€1993),€which€often€sponsored€ð ðÔ_ÔneighborhoodismÔ_Ô€and€rank€political€influence.ðð€ÏId€at€473.ÌÌà  àIf€for€no€other€reason€than€to€obviate€the€presumption€of€validity€previouslyÏattached€to€local€land€use€decisions€deemed€ð ðlegislativeðð€in€nature,€òòSnyderóó€empowered€theÐ ì!œ Ðcourts€to€accomplish€more€effective€review€of€local€land€use€decisions€when€it€construedÏrezonings€to€be€quasi„judicial€in€nature.€ÌÌà  àAs€it€regards€consistency€with€the€local€comprehensive€plan,€both€groups€ofÏcitizens€also€benefit€from€the€application€of€the€ð ðstrict€scrutinyðð€standard€of€review.€ÏòòSnyderóó€at€475.€€Given€the€importance€of€the€local€comprehensive€plan€to€all€citizens,€thisÐ (À  Ðvigorous€standard€of€review€is€essential€for€the€plan€to€be€meaningful.€€See€SectionÏ163.3194,€òòFla.€Stat.óó€(2001);€òòÔ_ÔPinecrestÔ_Ô€Lakes€Inc.€et€al.,€v.€Ô_ÔShidelÔ_Ôóó,€795€So.€2d€191€(Fla.€4òòthóóÐ *Ì"" ÐDCA€2001).€Ð "+Ò## Їà  àBased€on€this€line€of€analysis,€it€follows€that€both€the€neighbor€and€the€developerÏwould€benefit€if€ð ðfindings€of€factðð€were€required€for€certain€local€land€developmentÏdecisions,€especially€those€such€as€rezonings,€Ô_ÔPUDsÔ_Ô,€special€exceptions,€site€plans,€andÏthe€like.€€While€a€probable€outcome€of€such€a€requirement€could€be€orders€that€containÏnonspecific€policy€statements€to€support€local€land€use€decisions,€the€party€litigants€andÏthe€reviewing€courts€would€still€be€able€to€test€the€sufficiency€of€these€ð ðfindings.ðð€€IfÏnothing€else,€this€new€tool€should€help€dispose€of€clearly€arbitrary€decisions.€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà  àUnfortunately,€the€simple€deduction€that€findings€of€fact€are€helpful€to€both€theÏneighbor€and€the€developer€does€not€completely€address€the€goal€of€improving€theÏjudicial€review€of€local€land€use€decisions.€€This€is€because€there€are€currently€differentÏprocesses€for€review€of€local€land€use€decisions€depending€on€the€type€of€decision€at€issueÏand€the€type€of€ð ðcitizenðð€bringing€suit.€€ÌÌà  àòòTwo€different€systems€of€reviewóó.€€At€the€same€time€the€Court€issued€its€opinion€inÐ ¤T ÐòòSnyderóó,€it€released€òòParker€v.€Leon€Countyóó,€627€So.2d€476€(Fla.€1993).€€òòSnyderóó€requiredÐ ªZ Ðlocal€governments€to€hold€evidentiary€hearings€in€order€to€build€a€record€for€review.€ÏòòParkeróó€construed€the€statutory€remedy€of€de€novo€review€provided€in€Section€163.3215,Ð ¶f ÐFlorida€Statutes€òònotóó€to€apply€to€developers€who€were€òòdeniedóó€local€permits.€Ð ¼l ÐNotwithstanding€the€fact€that€the€statute€appears€to€extend€to€both€groups,€the€Court€inÏòòParkeróó€concluded€that€the€statute€only€provides€a€remedy€for€third€parties€to€challenge€theÐ Èx Ðconsistency€of€development€orders€that€in€fact€issued.€€The€Court€reasoned€the€statutoryÏcause€of€action€was€not€available€to€test€the€consistency€of€local€government€decisionsÏthat€denied€applications€for€development.€€Ìà  àÌà  àThe€combined€result€of€òòParkeróó€and€òòSnyderóó€is€that€there€are€now€different€remedies,Ð æ – Ðdifferent€time€lines,€different€degrees€of€deference,€and€different€standards€of€reviewÏapplied€to€local€land€use€disputes€depending€on€whether€the€local€government€has€issuedÏor€denied€a€local€development€order.€From€the€developerððs€standpoint,€this€means€it€mayÏhave€to€ð ðtryðð€its€case€twice.€€Once€before€the€local€government€in€the€quasi„judicialÏhearing€required€by€òòSnyderóó€and€again€before€a€circuit€court€under€the€statute€if€theÐ &´ Ðneighbors€challenge€the€permit.€€From€the€neighborððs€standpoint,€if€they€donððt€attend€theÏlocal€land€use€hearing€and€ð ðbuild€a€recordðð€supporting€denial,€they€could€be€deprived€ofÏvictory€upon€certiorari€review.€€So€they€also€have€to€ð ðlitigateðð€twice.€€This€raises€the€costÏâ âto€the€public€to€police€the€plan.€€€òòSnyderóó€also€turned€local€public€hearings€into€mini€trials,Ð *Ì"" Ðelected€officials€into€judges,€and€ð ðÔ_ÔlawyerizedÔ_Ôðð€a€process,€which€was€historically€moreÏdemocratic.€€Ìâ âÌà  àFurther€compounding€things€is€the€fact€that€issues€of€consistency€with€landÏdevelopment€regulations,€under€some€authority,€are€reviewed€by€a€petition€for€writ€ofÏcertiorari.€€This€can€create€a€situation€where€there€are€simultaneous€certiorari€and€de€novoÏproceedings€pending€in€the€circuit€court€over€the€same€development.€€The€difference€inÏappellate€review€between€these€remedies€adds€another€layer€of€concern.€€See€òòFloridaÐ z* ÐPower€and€Light€Company€v.€City€of€Ô_ÔDaniaÔ_Ôóó,€761€So.€2d€1089€(Fla.€2000),€and€JusticeÐ €0 ÐÔ_ÔParienteÔ_Ôððs€concurring€opinion€in€òòÔ_ÔGBVÔ_Ôóó.€€Ð †6  ÐÌà  àSome€would€argue€this€is€the€Legislatureððs€problem.€€It€could€fix€the€problems€thatÏflow€from€having€different€review€processes€by€creating€a€uniform€way€to€review€localÏland€use€decisions,€such€as€the€separate€Land€Use€Board€of€Appeals€used€by€the€states€ofÏWashington€and€Oregon.€€Others€worry€that€a€legislative€approach€would€furtherÏcomplicate€litigation€at€the€local€government€level€and€further€deprive€the€appellate€courtsÏof€their€appropriate€oversight€of€land€use€law.€€The€point€is,€these€discussions€are€avoidedÏby€the€conclusion€that€òòParkeróó€was€wrongly€decided€in€the€first€place.Ð ¶f ÐÌà  àIf€the€Court€were€to€reexamine€its€decision€in€òòParkeróó€it€could€conclude€that€itÐ Âr Ðmistakenly€construed€òòóóSection€163.3215€Florida€Statutes.€€€The€statute€certainly€appears€onÐ Èx Ðits€face€to€provide€a€remedy€to€òòallóó€participants€to€seek€de€novo€review.€€The€statuteÐ Î~ Ðauthorizes€a€cause€of€action€to€enjoin€an€ð ðaction€on€a€development€order,€as€defined€in€s.Ï163.3164ðð.€€Notably,€this€section€defines€the€terms€ð ðdevelopment€orderðð€to€include€anÏorder€granting€òòor€denyingóó€an€application€for€development€permit.€€€Some€in€the€professionÐ à Ðbelieve€that€is€was€the€Legislatureððs€intent€to€create€a€uniform€system€to€review€land€useÏdecisions.€€Remember,€the€statute€was€adopted€at€a€time€when€rezonings€were€legislativeÏin€nature€and€there€was€no€real€effective€judicial€review,€which€a€statutory€remedyÏprovided.€€€ÌÌà  àIf€the€Court€were€to€employ€a€broad€rather€than€a€narrow€construction€of€thisÏremedial€statute,€then€ð ðfindings€of€factðð€for€orders€at€local€quasi„judicial€hearings€wouldÏbe€unnecessary,€because€local€governments€would€not€need€to€hold€record„buildingÏhearings.€€Ìâ âÐ *Ì"" Ðà  àIf€developers€that€were€òòdeniedóó€permits€and€neighbors€who€oppose€them€could€bothÐ P Ðâ âget€a€trial€on€the€merits€under€Section€163.3215€Florida€Statutes€before€a€local€circuitÏjudge,€then€the€various€complications€caused€by€the€requirement€to€hold€a€òòSnyderóó„typeÐ \  Ðquasi„judicial€hearing€at€the€local€level€would€vanish.€€The€local€public€hearing€wouldÏreturn€as€a€benefit€of€local€democracy,€rather€than€remain€a€burden€to€all€parties€and€theÏlocal€government€concerned€with€building€a€proper€record€for€certiorari€review.€€€Ìà  àFinally,€on€the€issue€of€land€development€regulations,€if€the€Court€were€to€construeÏthe€definition€of€ð ðconsistencyðð€contained€in€Section€163.3194(3)(b),€òòFla.€Stat.óó€(2001),€andÐ z* Ðspecifically€the€terms€ð ðmeets€all€other€criteria€enumerated€by€the€local€governmentðð€toÏinclude€consistent€with€all€applicable€land€development€regulations,€then€parties€couldÏbring€all€disputes€in€one€action€before€a€trial€judge€under€Section€163.3215.€€AppealsÏwould€follow€to€the€District€Courts€and€Florida€would€continue€to€promote€a€statewideÏlexicon€of€land€use€law.€€Certiorari€review€would€be€relegated€to€the€past€where€codeÏpleading€had€been€wisely€been€discarded.ÌÌà  àòòConclusionóó.€€For€brevity,€the€author€has€refrained€from€an€in€depth€analysis€of€theÐ ªZ Ðeffects€of€òòSnyderóó€and€òòParkeróó€at€the€local€government€level.€€Suffice€it€to€say,€the€currentÐ °` Ðsystem€of€judicial€review€of€local€land€use€disputes€is€not€very€efficient.€€The€result€of€theÏconclusion€that€the€statutory€remedy€provided€in€Section€163.3215,€Florida€Statutes€wasÏnot€available€to€all€citizens€has€complicated€and€confounded€the€resolution€of€land€useÏdisputes€much€more€than€the€lack€of€findings€of€fact.€€ÌÌà  àCeÔ% €m Ôrtainly€on€the€question€at€hand,€findings€of€fact€can€only€help€the€public€at€large.€ÏIn€balancing€the€proper€level€of€discretion€to€be€afforded€local€governments,€thisÏrequirement€does€not€appear€to€be€too€onerous.€€That€being€said,€if€the€Court€wereÏinclined€to€really€improve€the€lot€of€land€use€lawyers,€it€would€be€well€advised€toÏreexamine€òòParkeróó.€Ð ì!œ ÐÌò òIII.€€Conclusionó óÐ ø#¨ ÐÌà  àThe€Ad€Hoc€Committee€urges€the€Rules€of€Judicial€Administration€Committee€toÏrecommend€against€the€promulgation€of€a€judicial€rule€requiring€written€final€decisionsÏwith€detailed€findings€of€fact€in€local€land€use€actions€that€are€subject€to€review€in€theÏcourts.€€If€the€Court€decides€to€take€further€action€regarding€written€final€decisions€withÏdetailed€findings€of€fact,€the€Ad€Hoc€Committee€hopes€that€these€comments€will€beÏuseful.Ð "+Ò## Їà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àRespectfully€submitted,ÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à________________________________Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àDavid€L.€Jordan,€Co„ChairÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àAd€Hoc€Committee€on€òòBroward€v.€Ô_ÔG.B.V.Ô_ÔóóÐ h  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àEnvironmental€and€Land€Use€Law€SectionÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à€€of€the€Florida€BarÌÌCo„Chairs:ÌÌÒ(€x€°(#°(#(ÒC.€Allen€Watts,€Esq.ÌCobb,€Cole€&€BellÌPost€Office€Box€2491ÌDaytona€Beach,€FL€€32115Ì386/323„9293;€386/253„1746€faxÌcwatt@ccb.comÐ ªZ ÐDavid€L.€Jordan,€Esq.ÌDepartment€of€Community€AffairsÌ2555€Shumard€Oak€BoulevardÌTallahassee,€FL€€32399„2100Ì850/922„1690;€850/922„2679€faxÌdavid.jordan@dca.state.fl.usÐ ªZ ÐMembership:ÌÌÔ_ÔTerrellÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔArlineÔ_Ô,€Esq.,€Legal€DirectorÌ1000€Friends€of€FloridaÌPost€Office€Box€5948ÌTallahassee,€FL€€32314„5948Ì850/222„6277;€850/222„1117€faxÌtarline@1000fof.orgÐ à ÐÌÌJoni€Armstrong€Coffey,€Esq.ÌMiami„Dade€County€Attorneyððs€OfficeÌ111€NW€1st€Street,€Suite€2800ÌMiami,€FL€€33128Ì305/375„5151;€305/375„5634€faxÌjac@miamidade.govÐ à" ÐÔ_ÔT.R.Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔHainlineÔ_Ô,€Esq.ÌRogers,€TowersÌ1301€Ô_ÔRiverplaceÔ_Ô€BoulevardÌSuite€1500ÌJacksonville,€FL€€32207Ì904/346„5531;€904/396„0663€faxÌÔ4‚ŒÝ °ÔÝ‚‰ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôóóthainline@rtlaw.comòòÔ6púÔÝ‚‰ÍO„úƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý Ð ²úÔÐ (À ( ÐGary€E.€Ô_ÔOldehoffÔ_Ô,€Esq.Ì27€East€Ocean€BoulevardÌStuart,€FL€€34994Ì561/219„2366;€561/219„2414€faxÌâ âÔ4‚Ý (ÔÝ‚‰ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôóógoldehoff@earthlink.netòòÔ6ÍûÔÝ‚‰ÍOáûƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý tüÔÐ &´, ÐKarl€Sanders,€Esq.ÌEdwards€&€CohenÌâ â200€North€Lamar€Street,€12th€FloorÌJacksonville,€FL€€32202Ì904/633„7979;€904/633„9026€faxÌÔ4‚Ý °ÔÝ‚‰ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôóóksanders@edcolaw.comòòÔ6,ýÔÝ‚‰ÍO@ýƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý ä nýÔÐ n  ÐSusan€L.€Ô_ÔTrevarthenÔ_Ô,€Esq.ÌWeiss,€Ô_ÔSerotaÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔHelfmanÔ_Ô,€Ì€€€Ô_ÔPastorizaÔ_Ô€&€Ô_ÔGuedesÔ_ÔÌ3107€Stirling€Road,€Suite€300ÌFort€Lauderdale,€FL€€33312Ì954/763„4242;€954/764„7770€faxÌstrevarthen@wsh„Ô_Ôflalaw.comÔ_ÔÐ t $  ÐÒ5°(#°(#€x€°°Yö5Ò