Village of Palmetto Bay, Florida v. Alexander School, Inc.
223 So. 3d 1037
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Alexander Schools, a private Montessori school in the Village of Palmetto Bay, sought to increase enrollment in 2013 and again in 2015.
- Village Charter §10.1 requires a referendum of registered voters within a 2,000-foot radius and 75% voter approval before the Village Council may consider increasing enrollment at a private school; the school bears the cost of the election.
- In both referenda Alexander School failed to obtain the required 75% approval, so the Council never held a public hearing on the applications.
- Alexander School sued, claiming §10.1 was unconstitutional on multiple grounds: due process deprivation (no hearing), improper delegation/popularity contest, disparate treatment of private schools, arbitrariness and lack of rational relation to public welfare, and impossibly high approval threshold.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Alexander School, holding §10.1 arbitrary/unreasonable and violative of the right to be heard; the Village appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo, emphasizing the heavy burden on challengers to municipal zoning or land-use regulations to prove unreasonableness and lack of relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §10.1 is arbitrary/unreasonable and bears no substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare | §10.1 has no rational relationship to public safety and is arbitrary/capricious | Presumption of validity for municipal zoning; challenger must prove regulation is unreasonable and unrelated to public welfare | Reversed: Alexander failed to meet the high burden; §10.1 was not shown to be arbitrary or without rational relation to public welfare |
| Whether §10.1 deprives Alexander of due process/right to be heard by precluding a direct public hearing before the Council | Requiring a referendum before any Council hearing denies procedural due process and the right to be heard on facts | Referenda and preconditions to zoning relief do not per se violate due process; such provisions are permissible | Reversed: No due process violation; voter referendum and preconditions are permissible |
| Whether §10.1 impermissibly delegates land-use decisions to a subset of voters or turns land-use into a popularity contest | Delegation to nearby electors vests land-use decisions in a small group, improperly shifting municipal function | Municipalities may provide for voter decision-making on some matters; challenger must prove invalid delegation with evidence | Rejected: Alexander provided insufficient evidence to show improper delegation or lack of rational basis |
| Whether §10.1 unlawfully discriminates against private schools compared to other assemblies (public schools, theaters, houses of worship) | Disparate treatment of private schools vs. similar uses shows irrational discrimination | Plaintiff failed to demonstrate factual comparability or similar impacts; municipality cannot regulate public schools similarly | Rejected: No evidentiary showing of similarity or disparate impact, so discrimination claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Caribbean Conservation Corp. v. Fla. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Comm’n, 838 So. 2d 492 (discussing de novo review of constitutional challenges)
- Kuvin v. City of Coral Gables, 62 So. 3d 625 (municipal zoning ordinances presumed valid; burden on challenger to prove unreasonableness)
- Fox v. Town of Bay Harbor Islands, 450 So. 2d 559 (presumption of validity for municipal land-use regulations)
- Florida Land Co. v. City of Winter Springs, 427 So. 2d 170 (voter referendum provisions do not per se violate due process)
- Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (preconditions to zoning relief do not automatically deprive due process)