161 So. 3d 548
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Anderson appeals a final judgment upholding Florida statute 163.32466 as constitutional.
- He challenges Ordinance 2011-19 amending the City’s comprehensive plan for lack of proper Section 166.041 notice.
- The City did not publish required notice under 166.041(c)(3) for zoning changes affecting land use.
- The trial court ruled the ordinance valid and granted summary judgment for the City and certain officials on Sunshine Law claims.
- The court concludes Ordinance 2011-19 is void for failure to comply with 166.041, and Sunshine Law claim is not cured.
- The court reverses and remands on Sunshine Law, and declines to address the constitutionality of 163.32466 at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Ordinance 2011-19 under 166.041 notice | Anderson contends 166.041 notice was required and not met | City asserts ordinance is valid legislative enactment regardless of form | Ordinance 2011-19 void for lack of 166.041 notice |
| Sunshine Law exposure from shade meetings | Anderson alleges seven shade meetings violated 286.011(1) by broader policy discussions | City asserts discussions fell within 286.011(8) exemption for settlement talks | Shade meetings violated Sunshine Law; reversal and remand for remedy |
| Remedy for Sunshine Law violation | Declaration that the act was illicit and void is appropriate relief | Cure doctrine may apply if later action is properly discussed in public | Remanded for further proceedings; declaration of Sunshine Law violation affirmed |
| Constitutionality of section 163.32466 | Argues 163.32466 is unconstitutional | City defends constitutionality | Court did not reach constitutional issue; decision limited to notice and Sunshine issues |
Key Cases Cited
- David v. City of Dunedin, 473 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (strict enactment required under 166.041 for zoning ordinances)
- Coleman v. City of Key West, 807 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (strict compliance with 166.041 cautioned)
- Tolar v. Sch. Bd. of Liberty Cnty., 398 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1981) (cure doctrine limits when action is void for Sunshine Law violation)
- Neu v. Miami Herald Publ’g Co., 462 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1985) (shade exemption context and legislative history discussed)
- Zorc v. City of Vero Beach, 722 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (exemption limited to settlement discussions, not broad policy issues)