## Facts

- Omnipoint Holdings, Inc., sought approval to build a 148-foot telecommunications monopole on property in a limited business zoning district.
- Omnipoint applied for (1) an “unusual use” exception, (2) a modification of a prior site plan, and (3) a nonuse variance reducing a rear setback requirement from 164 feet to 84 feet.
- The site contained a public storage facility and was bordered to the north and south by developed single-family townhome neighborhoods; an adjacent parcel had an existing 150-foot telecommunications tower; nearby roadway infrastructure included 75-foot utility poles.
- County staff recommended approval, and the zoning board hearing included staff reports, photographs, zoning maps, and testimony.
- Nearby homeowners opposed the application, arguing the monopole’s height, appearance, and placement were incompatible with neighborhood character.
- The zoning board denied the requests by resolution, finding the proposal was not compatible with the area, not in harmony with the zoning scheme’s purposes, and would have an adverse impact.

## Issues

1. In second-tier certiorari review of a circuit court’s appellate decision in a local zoning matter, may a district court of appeal decide, sua sponte, the facial constitutionality of the governing ordinance?
2. Is certiorari an appropriate procedural vehicle for adjudicating a facial constitutional challenge to a statute or ordinance?

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court held the district court of appeal exceeded the proper scope of second-tier certiorari by addressing the facial constitutionality of the county’s ordinances on its own initiative.
- The Court held certiorari is not the proper vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance.
- The Court quashed the district court of appeal’s decision and remanded for further proceedings limited to the proper scope of second-tier certiorari review.

## Legal Principles

- First-tier certiorari (circuit court appellate review of quasi-judicial local action) examines: (1) procedural due process, (2) whether essential requirements of law were observed, and (3) whether the decision is supported by competent substantial evidence.
- Second-tier certiorari (district court of appeal review) is limited to whether the circuit court: (1) afforded procedural due process and (2) applied the essential requirements of law; it is not a forum to reweigh evidence or decide issues not presented below.
- In quasi-judicial land-use matters, a local government must deny an application based on competent substantial evidence showing the applicant failed to meet published criteria.
- Quasi-judicial boards and reviewing courts in certiorari proceedings lack authority to invalidate the legislated criteria they are charged with applying.
- Facial constitutional challenges generally must be raised through appropriate pleadings and procedures (such as declaratory or injunctive actions), not through certiorari.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court reinforced that second-tier certiorari is a narrowly confined remedy focused on due process and correct application of law, and it may not be used—especially on a court’s own initiative—to adjudicate the facial constitutionality of local ordinances.


Miami-Dade County v. Omnipoint Holdings, Inc., 863 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2003)