## Facts

- Metropolitan Dade County considered designating part of P.J. Birds, Inc.’s “Parrot Jungle” property as a county historic site under the county historic preservation ordinance.
- County staff prepared a detailed report recommending designation of a twelve-acre portion of the property.
- After a public hearing, the Dade County Historic Preservation Board voted to approve the designation.
- The owner appealed to the Board of County Commissioners, asserting it lacked a full and fair chance to present its case; the Commission remanded for a new Board hearing.
- On remand, the Board received the staff report again, heard extensive testimony from the Board’s executive director and members of the public, and received written submissions.
- The owner did not present evidence; its principals declined to answer questions from the Board; the owner participated through cross-examination and legal argument.
- The Board again unanimously voted for designation, and the Commission held a hearing and upheld the designation by resolution, finding the site of “exceptional importance” and stating supporting grounds.
- The owner sought first-tier certiorari in the circuit court (appellate division), which quashed the designation on procedural due process and evidentiary grounds.
- The County petitioned the district court of appeal for second-tier certiorari review of the circuit court’s order.

## Issues

1. Whether applying an “exceptional importance” criterion for designating a property less than fifty years old violated procedural due process because the criterion was allegedly undefined or insufficiently noticed.
2. Whether the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by failing to defer to the County’s interpretation of its ordinance and by reweighing evidence rather than applying competent substantial evidence review.
3. On second-tier certiorari, whether the circuit court applied the correct law governing review of local quasi-judicial land-use decisions.

## Decision

- The district court of appeal granted the County’s petition for writ of certiorari and quashed the circuit court’s order.
- The court held that the owner received procedural due process, including notice and a full and fair opportunity to be heard.
- The court held the circuit court misapplied the law by substituting its judgment for the County’s reasonable interpretation of its own ordinance and by reweighing evidence.
- The result reinstated the County’s historic-site designation of the relevant portion of the property.

## Legal Principles

- On second-tier certiorari, the district court evaluates whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process and applied the correct law; it does not decide the merits of the underlying administrative decision.
- Reviewing courts must defer to a local agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ordinance when consistent with legislative intent and supported by competent substantial evidence.
- In first-tier certiorari review of quasi-judicial local decisions, a circuit court may not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the local decision-maker; the inquiry is whether competent substantial evidence supports the decision.
- Procedural due process in quasi-judicial land-use proceedings requires notice and a full and fair opportunity to be heard; a party’s decision not to present evidence does not convert an available fair process into a due process violation.
- A qualitative ordinance term (such as “exceptional importance”) may be applied where the ordinance text, staff analysis, and administrative findings provide a workable standard and the affected party has meaningful participation opportunities.

## Conclusion

The court granted second-tier certiorari because the circuit court improperly invalidated a historic-site designation by demanding a more formal definition of “exceptional importance” than the ordinance required and by reweighing the evidentiary record, despite adequate notice, fair hearings, and competent substantial evidence supporting the County’s decision.


Metropolitan Dade County v. P.J. Birds, Inc., 654 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)