MICHAEL A SAIGER 9 CENTURY LANE LLC AND 10 CENTURY LN LLC

Miami Beach.

Before: TRAWICK, ARECES, R., and DE LA O, JJ.

Trawick, J., Petitioners Michael A. Saiger, 9 Century Lane LLC & 10 Century Ln LLC ("Petitioners") filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari wherein they contend this Court should quash the order rendered on April 30, 2025, by the Design Review Board of the City of Miami Beach.

Petitioners are the owners of three properties, located at 8, 9, and 10 Century Lane in Miami Beach. Petitioners sought a variance of the area's RM-1 Zoning requirements (residential, multifamily, low intensity structures) to combine the three separate properties together and build a new four-story single-family home on the property.

The Design Review Board held a hearing on April 10, 2025, and voted to deny the variance request, determining that the Petitioner had failed to meet their burden of proof to establish that there was a practical difficulty that would support a variance. The Board further determined that none of the eight variance criteria¹ for a hardship N 1 The variance criteria are as follows: [*2] contained in the Miami Beach Resiliency Code, Section 2.8.3.a, were met.² A written order (“DRB Order”) was rendered on April 30, 2025, denying the variance request.

Petitioner contends, among other arguments, that the DRB Order fails to comply with the dictates of the Resiliency Code. Respondent maintains that the Board's written findings satisfy the Resiliency Code and the disapproval of a variance in its conclusions that the Petitioner failed to establish both practical difficulties and the eight variance criteria for a hardship waiver of the zoning requirements for the area.

I. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district; II. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the action of the applicant; III. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these land development regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district; IV. Literal interpretation of the provisions of these land development regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of these land development regulations and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant; V. The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure; VI. The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of these land development regulations and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; VII. The granting of this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and does not reduce the levels of service as set forth in the plan; and VIII. The granting of the variance will result in a structure and site that complies with the sea level rise and resiliency review criteria in chapter 7, article I, as applicable. N 2 It should be noted that all eight variance criteria must be satisfied. [*3] Section 2.2.4.2. [General Hearing Procedures] of the City of Miami Beach Resiliency Code provides that:

[a]ny decision must take the form of an approval, approval with conditions, or denial, and must include written findings supporting the decision. If the decision is a denial, the city shall include a citation to the applicable portions of an ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority for the denial of the application.

In determining whether the above cited Resiliency Code provision was satisfied by the DBR Order, the Court must determine "how much is enough" for the findings that must be included in an order of an administrative board or agency. The Third District Court of Appeal has provided guidance in answering that question:

“... [E]very final order entered by an administrative agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions must contain specific findings of fact upon which its ultimate action is taken." Hayes v. Monroe Cnty, 337 So. 3d 442, 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (citation omitted).

Here, the DRB Order concluded that "[t]he applicant has submitted plans and documents with the application that do not satisfy Article 1, Section 2 of the Related Special Acts, allowing the granting of a variance if the Board finds that practical difficulties [*4] exist with respect to implementing the proposed project at the subject property." (emphasis in the original) The DRB Order further concluded that "the plans and documents submitted with the application do not comply with the following hardship criteria, as they relate to the requirements of Section 2.8.3 of the Land Development Regulations." (emphasis in the original). The eight variance criteria were thereupon listed. No specificity was provided as to why the variance request did not comply with the practical difficulties or hardship requirements.

While there is no precise standard as to the extent of findings that an administrative agency must include in an order to support its action, barebones conclusions accompanied by cites to code provisions will not suffice. As a result, the DRB Order does not contain the requisite specific findings of fact as required in Hayes.

While the Court agrees with Petitioner that the DRB order fails to comply with the essential requirements of law, the Court finds that the remaining arguments made by Petitioner lack merit.

For the aforementioned reasons, the decision by Respondent's Design Review Board is QUASHED. The matter is hereby REMANDED to the Design Review Board to provide support for each [*5] of the conclusions it reaches in its Order with specific findings of fact which are supported by competent substantial evidence. The Petition is hereby DENIED in all other respects.

ARECES, R. AND DE LA O, JJ., CONCUR.