## Facts

- Jack and Gail Snyder owned a one-half acre parcel on Merritt Island in unincorporated Brevard County, Florida, zoned GU (general use) for a single-family residence.
- The Snyders applied to rezone the parcel to a multi-family classification allowing 15 units per acre, which aligned with the comprehensive plan’s density designation for the area.
- The parcel was in a flood plain where the plan generally limited density to two units per acre; county staff initially recommended denial but later withdrew the objection after concluding the restriction would not apply if the site were filled and raised.
- The planning and zoning board recommended approval.
- After a public hearing with substantial citizen opposition, the Board of County Commissioners denied the rezoning request without stating reasons.
- The circuit court denied the Snyders’ petition for certiorari review; the district court granted second-tier certiorari, treated the denial as quasi-judicial, and applied a heightened evidentiary standard to uphold denial.
- The Florida Supreme Court accepted review due to conflict with prior zoning-review decisions.

## Issues

1. Whether the denial of a parcel-specific rezoning application is legislative action or quasi-judicial action.
2. What standard and scope of judicial review apply to such a rezoning denial.
3. How the burden of proof operates when the landowner asserts the requested rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

## Decision

- The court held the rezoning denial was quasi-judicial because it applied existing policy to a small number of persons and parcels after a fact-focused hearing.
- The court held review is by first-tier certiorari in circuit court, limited to procedural due process, observance of the essential requirements of law, and whether the decision is supported by competent substantial evidence.
- The court rejected use of “strict scrutiny” and a “clear and convincing evidence” requirement for local rezoning denials.
- The court adopted a burden-shifting approach: once the landowner shows plan consistency, the local government must show that retaining the existing zoning serves a legitimate public purpose supported by competent substantial evidence.
- The court quashed the district court’s decision and remanded for proceedings applying the correct review standard.

## Legal Principles

- Small-scale, site-specific rezoning decisions are quasi-judicial when they involve fact-specific determinations affecting limited persons or parcels, rather than formulation of general policy.
- Circuit court certiorari review of quasi-judicial zoning actions is confined to: (1) procedural due process, (2) essential requirements of law, and (3) competent substantial evidence.
- Competent substantial evidence requires a substantial factual basis from which the agency’s conclusion may reasonably be inferred; reviewing courts do not reweigh evidence.
- Consistency with the comprehensive plan supports the requested rezoning but does not create automatic entitlement; if the landowner proves consistency, the local government must justify denial by competent substantial evidence of a legitimate public purpose.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court classified parcel-specific rezoning denials as quasi-judicial actions subject to certiorari review for competent substantial evidence and legal regularity, rejected heightened “strict scrutiny” review, and required local governments to justify denial with competent substantial evidence once a landowner demonstrates comprehensive-plan consistency.


Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Brevard Cnty. v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993)