CITY OF LAKE WORTH, A FLORIDA MUNICIPALITY, AND SUNSET DRIVE HOLDINGS, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, INC., A POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, AND BETTY ANDERSON, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The City of Lake Worth appeals a trial court decision that partially granted certiorari relief to challengers who sought to invoke the referendum process against city ordinances rezoning a 4.02-acre parcel. The appellate court reverses, holding that under Florida Statutes § 163.3167(12), an amendment only "affects" parcels directly subject to the amendment, not nearby parcels, making the referendum process unavailable.
The court held that amendments cannot be said to "affect" parcels of land not directly subject to the amendment, regardless of whether the amendment may have an impact on nearby property owners. Because this case involved only one directly amended parcel, the referendum process is prohibited under § 163.3167(12).
[1] A petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of a final judgment partially granting certiorari relief and denying mandamus relief will be treated as a final appeal fr…
[2] A statutory prohibition on initiative or referendum processes concerning amendments affecting five or fewer parcels of land applies only to parcels directly subject to th…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An initiative or referendum process in regard to any development order or in regard to any local comprehensive plan amendment or map amendment that affects five or fewer parcels of land is prohibited.”
The controlling statutory provision that defines when the referendum process is unavailable.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Lake Worth enacted ordinances amending its comprehensive plan and rezoning a 4.02-acre parcel of land. Save Our Neighborhood, Inc. and Bet…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandamus Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAHOOD, C.J.
The City of Lake Worth has filed a petition for writ of certiorari. The City seeks review of the trial court’s Final Judgment that partially granted certiorari relief, while denying mandamus relief. While the City filed a petition for writ of certiorari, we treat the case as a final appeal from a final judgment, and reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to enter an amended final judgment in favor of the City.
The Final Judgment resolved challenges by Save Our Neighborhood, Inc. and Betty Anderson to the enactment of city ordinances. Those ordinances concern a 4.02 acre parcel of land. The ordinances amended the City’s comprehensive plan and provided for rezoning of that parcel.
Save Our Neighborhood and Anderson sought to invoke the referendum process set forth in the City of Lake Worth’s Charter to challenge City ordinances. The availability of the Charter’s referendum process turned on interpretation of section 163.3167(12), Florida Statutes (2005), and its definition of the term “affects.” Section 163.3167(12) provides: “An initiative or referendum process in regard to any development order or in regard to any local comprehensive plan amendment or map amendment that affects five or fewer parcels of land is prohibited.” Within the Final Judgment the trial court found that “affected” parcels include the parcel specifically described in the amendment at issue and may also include other affected parcels. We disagree.
Section 163.3167(12) prohibits the referendum process in situations where amendments affect five or fewer parcels of land. We hold that amendments cannot be said to “affect” parcels of land not directly subject to the amendment. This is so regardless of whether the amendment may be said to have an impact or an effect on people who own nearby property. This case involved one parcel of property only and therefore an initiated or referendum process is prohibited under section 163.3167(12).
Since we are treating this as an appeal and not as a petition for writ of certiorari, we decline to address the second issue presented.
Reversed and Remanded With Directions.
POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.