TESSIER

v.

IRC 25 AP 6 DENY CERT A2B

EWEN, J. The Tessiers seek first-tier certiorari review of the Board's quasi-judicial decision under Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(c)(3), in which this Court sits in its review capacity because they request review of a quasi-judicial decision of a local 1 Petitioners’ document invoking this court’s jurisdiction is labeled “Notice of Appeal.” [*2] Page 2 of 5 administrative board not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. Fla. R. App. P. 9.190(b)(3). As such, the Court construes the Notice of Appeal as a Petition for Certiorari. Petitioners Joseph and Sharon Tessier seek review of a Final Order of the Indian River County Environmental Control Hearing Board (the “Board”) finding that they installed and operated an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system without a permit and directing them to abandon and re-permit the system and to cease commercial use of the property until approved water and wastewater systems are installed. Because the Board afforded the Petitioners procedural due process, observed the essential requirements of law, and the decision was based on competent, substantial evidence, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied. Standard of Review The standard of review applied by a circuit court to a quasi-judicial administrative decision is (1) whether the agency afforded procedural due process; (2) whether it observed the essential requirements of law; and (3) whether competent, substantial evidence supports its findings and judgment. See Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995); see also Broward County v. G.B.V. Int'l, Ltd., 787 So. 2d 838, 846 n.25 (Fla. 2001). Procedural Due Process Petitioners received notice and a full opportunity to be heard. They appeared, testified, questioned a witness, and presented evidence before the Board. Generally, due process requirements are met in a quasi-judicial [*3] Page 3 of 5 proceeding “if the parties are provided notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard.” Seiden v. Adams, 150 So. 3d 1215, 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting Jennings v. Dade Cnty., 589 So. 2d 1337, 1340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Here, the record demonstrates no denial of procedural due process. Essential Requirements of Law Florida law prohibits any person from constructing, repairing, modifying, or abandoning an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system without first obtaining a construction permit. See § 381.0065, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 62-6.003(1). The Board found a violation of that requirement, and Petitioner Joseph Tessier admitted at the hearing that he installed the system without a permit and was pursuing an after-the-fact permit. Ordering abandonment of an unpermitted system and application for a lawful replacement enforces the governing rule and is squarely within the Board’s authority. See Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 62-6.011. Petitioners next contend the Final Order conflicts with Florida’s agritourism statutes. Section 570.85 restrains a local government from limiting an agritourism activity on agricultural land, but it expressly preserves authority to address substantial offsite impacts and emergencies and does not suspend state environmental permitting. See § 570.85, Fla. Stat. Ann. The Board enforced a statewide permitting rule under Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-6, not a local land-use restriction on agritourism. The agritourism statutes afford no basis to disturb the Final Order. [*4] Page 4 of 5 Petitioners also attack requirements the Final Order does not contain. Specifically, the Final Order imposes no conversion to a “public well” and no prohibition on portable restrooms; it requires only that commercial use cease until approved water and wastewater systems are installed and that the unpermitted water be limited to household use. A certiorari court reviews only the order entered, and these contentions supply no ground for relief. See Everest Re Group, Ltd. v. Dep't of Fin. Servs., 10 So. 3d 1120, 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Competent, Substantial Evidence The record contains competent, substantial evidence supporting the Board’s findings. The permitting violation was admitted by Petitioner himself, and the Board received testimony that the unpermitted system could not be retroactively permitted and had to be abandoned. That Petitioners’ refusal to permit inspection left certain system specifics unknown does not undermine findings that rest on the admitted, unpermitted status of the system. Because competent, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination, this Court will not reweigh the evidence. See Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995). Conclusion Petitioners have not established a denial of procedural due process, a departure from the essential requirements of law, or an absence of competent, substantial evidence. The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

[*5] Page 5 of 5

Copies of above decision were furnished to the attorneys/parties of record on the same date the decision was filed.