TITLE
title
Proposed Ordinance Enacting Procedures for Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act
body
BRIEF OVERVIEW
Under the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act, commonly known as FLUEDRA, any landowner who “believes that a development order, either separately or in conjunction with other development orders, or an enforcement action of a governmental entity, is unreasonable or unfairly burdens the use of the owner’s real property” can mandate that the applicable local government participate in an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process in an attempt to resolve the dispute. Fla. Stat. § 70.51(3).
While detailed provisions govern proceedings for relief under FLUEDRA, the Legislature permits a local government to “establish procedural guidelines to govern the conduct of proceedings authorized by this section, which must include, but are not limited to, payment of special magistrate fees and expenses, including the costs of providing notice and effecting service of the request for relief under this section, which shall be borne equally by the governmental entities and the owner.” Compare Fla. Stat. § 70.51(4)-(30) with Fla. Stat. § 70.51(28). The Hernando County Board of County Commissioners (the “Board”), however, did not adopt procedures after the Legislature enacted FLUEDRA in 1995. Presumably, this is because no property owner submitted a request for relief under the statute until 2021.
Since 2021, Hernando County has received several requests for relief under FLUEDRA. The lack of governing procedures has resulted in a considerable amount of uncertainty amongst County staff (e.g., how to select a general magistrate, how to advertise the various meetings and hearings, how the Board should memorialize its decisions on mediated agreements and the magistrates’ recommendations, etc.). The County Attorney’s Office drafted the proposed ordinance to alleviate such confusion by adopting procedures to govern FLUEDRA proceedings.
The proposed ordinance tracks FLUEDRA’s procedural requirements, but also augments the statutory requirements by: (1) requiring the parties to split the costs associated with the special magistrate, (2) providing a mechanism to select a special magistrate when the parties cannot agree on one, (3) explicitly stating that a property owner cannot seek relief under FLUEDRA from a code enforcement proceeding or comprehensive plan amendment, (4) requiring the special magistrate to schedule the mediation and the evidentiary hearing on separate days, (5) requiring the Board to consider a mediated settlement/special magistrate recommendation at a quasi-judicial hearing if the Board would have to conduct a quasi-judicial hearing on an application seeking the relief provided in the settlement/recommendation in the first instance.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
LEGAL NOTE
The Board is authorized to enact the proposed ordinance pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§ 70.51(28) and 125.01.
recommendation
RECOMMENDATION
N/A. This agenda item presents an issue of pure public policy.