Carillon Community Residential v. Seminole County
2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9757, 2010 WL 2628692, 45 So. 3d 7 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a quasi-judicial administrative hearing, due process does not require that participants, such as adjoining landowners, be afforded the right to cross-examine witnesses. This right is typically reserved for parties, such as the applicant and the governmental agency.
Facts:
- A developer sought an amendment to the Carillon Planned Unit Development to allow for a mixed-use project.
- The proposed project included a four-story, 600-bed student housing complex on parcels of land adjacent to the Carillon Community Residential Association's subdivision.
- The Seminole County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) held a quasi-judicial hearing to consider the amendment.
- At the hearing, the Carillon Community Residential Association and its president, Ken Hofer, sought to oppose the project.
- The BCC denied the Association's request to directly cross-examine the developer's witnesses.
- However, the BCC implemented a procedure allowing the Association to submit questions to the board, which would then pose them to the appropriate individuals.
- The BCC ultimately approved the PUD amendment.
Procedural Posture:
- The Seminole County Board of County Commissioners approved an amendment to the Carillon Planned Unit Development in a quasi-judicial hearing.
- Carillon Community Residential Association, Inc., and Ken Hofer (Petitioners) sought first-tier certiorari review in the Florida circuit court.
- The circuit court upheld the Board of County Commissioners' approval.
- Petitioners then sought second-tier certiorari review from the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a local government's refusal to allow adjoining landowners to cross-examine witnesses at a quasi-judicial rezoning hearing violate their procedural due process rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, a local government's refusal to allow adjoining landowners to cross-examine witnesses at a quasi-judicial rezoning hearing does not violate their procedural due process rights. The court distinguished between 'parties' (the applicant and the government agency) and 'participants' (such as neighboring landowners). While parties to a quasi-judicial hearing have a due process right to cross-examine witnesses, participants do not have an absolute right to do so. The court applied the Mathews v. Eldridge test and found that the procedure used by the Board of County Commissioners was constitutionally sufficient. It noted the landowners' interest in enjoying their property was less compelling than the developer's interest in using its property, the risk of erroneous deprivation was low, and the alternative procedure of submitting questions to the board was an adequate safeguard. Granting cross-examination rights to all interested persons would create a 'cumbersome, unwieldy procedural nightmare' for local governments.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of procedural due process rights in quasi-judicial land use hearings by cementing the distinction between 'parties' and 'participants.' It establishes that while a hearing must be fundamentally fair, governmental bodies can place reasonable limits on the procedures available to interested community members, such as neighboring landowners. The ruling prevents administrative hearings from becoming full-blown trials, prioritizing governmental efficiency while affirming that participants are still entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard, albeit with fewer procedural rights than the primary parties involved.
