Summary
In Rathkamp, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the final order of the Florida Department of Community Affairs, which held that Monroe County Ordinance No. 004-1997 is valid under Florida law and consistent with the Principles of Guiding Development for the Florida Keys area of critical state concern, as required by Fla. Stat. § 380.04.
Summary of this case from Neumont v. Monroe County, FloridaOpinion
No. 98-3383.
Opinion filed August 4, 1999. Rehearing Denied October 20, 1999.
An appeal from the Department of Community Affairs, L.T. No. 97-5952.
Gray Harris and Robinson, P.A., and Wilbur E. Brewton, and Kenneth J. Plante (Tallahassee); Ritter, Chusid, Bivona Cohen, LLP and Jeffrey Bell (Boca Raton), for appellants.
Morgan Hendrick, and Karen K. Cabanas, and Hugh J. Morgan; Sherry A. Spiers, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Community Affairs (Tallahassee), for appellees.
Sarah M. Bleakley and William J. Roberts (Tallahassee) for Florida Association of Counties, Inc. as amicus curiae; Frank A. Shepherd for Pacific Legal Foundation as amicus curiae.
Before COPE, LEVY, and GREEN, JJ.
The appellants appeal a final order entered by the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs ("FDCA") finding Monroe County Ordinance number 004-1997, which prohibits vacation rentals for periods of less than twenty-eight days in certain unincorporated areas of Monroe County, to be consistent with the Principles of Guiding Development for the Florida Keys area of critical state concern pursuant to section 380.04, Florida Statutes (1997). After reviewing the record on appeal, we first find that there is competent substantial evidence to support the FDCA's findings in this regard. See University of Miami v. Zepeda, 674 So.2d 765, 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Armesto v. Weidner, 615 So.2d 707, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Cohen v. School Bd. of Dade County, Florida, 450 So.2d 1238, 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Finally, contrary to the appellants' argument, we conclude that section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes (1997), is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the FDCA where the legislature has set forth twelve specific guidelines for guiding development and has directed that such guidelines are to be reviewed by the FDCA as a whole in its determination of whether a proposed land development regulation is consistent with the guidelines. For these reasons, the order under review is affirmed.
Affirmed.