Case Name: ISLAND, INC., a Florida corporation, and Beach Development, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. The CITY OF BRADENTON BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2004-06-23
Citations: 884 So. 2d 107
Docket Number: No. 2D03-3628
Parties: ISLAND, INC., a Florida corporation, and Beach Development, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. The CITY OF BRADENTON BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation, Appellee.
Judges: VILLANTI, J., Concurs specially with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 884
Pages: 107–112

Head Matter:
ISLAND, INC., a Florida corporation, and Beach Development, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. The CITY OF BRADENTON BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation, Appellee.
No. 2D03-3628.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
June 23, 2004.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 19, 2004.
John P. Harllee, III, and Brian L. Trimyer of Harllee & Bald, P.A., Bradenton, for Appellants.
Gregory W. Hootman of Gregory W. Hootman, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellee.

Opinion:
WHATLEY, Judge.
Island, Inc. and Beach Development, Inc. appeal the final judgment affirming the denial by the City Commission of the City of Bradenton Beach of their petition for two small-scale development amendments to the City's comprehensive plan. The Appellants sought the amendments to change the designation of their property on the future land use map of the City's comprehensive plan from preservation, a classification which permits no development, to medium/high residential/tourist in order to construct a duplex on each of their two lots. We reverse.
"[S]mall-scale development amendments sought pursuant to section 163.3187(l)(c) are legislative decisions which are subject to the fairly-debatable standard of review." Coastal Dev. of N. Fla., Inc. v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 788 So.2d 204, 210 (Fla.2001). "The fairly debatable standard of review is a highly deferential standard requiring approval of a planning action if reasonable persons could differ as to its propriety." Martin County v. Yusem, 690 So.2d 1288, 1295 (Fla.1997). This court reviews the trial court's application of the fairly debatable standard de novo. Martin County v. Section 28 P'ship, Ltd., 772 So.2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). The "fairly debatable" rule is a rule of reasonableness. Lee County v. Sunbelt Equities, II, Ltd. P'ship, 619 So.2d 996, 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
The trial court erred in finding that, based on the evidence that was before the City Commission at the public hearing on the Appellants' petition, the City's denial of the Appellants' petition was fairly debatable. The Appellants presented expert testimony, including from the City's own land planner, showing that the designation of the Appellants' property as preservation was erroneous because the property did not meet the definition of preservation. They also presented evidence, and the trial court found, that Manatee County had taxed the property as R-3, i.e., residential, property, and the mayor's son had been issued a license to operate a sailboat rental business on the property, which activity is not allowed on preservation property. The City, on the other hand, presented only the testimony of neighboring property owners and individuals who had been on either the City Commission or the Citizens' Advisory Council at the time the comprehensive plan was formulated and adopted or who were on the City Commission at the time the Appellants' petition was denied. Although these individuals testified that the City intended for the property to be designated preservation and maintained as open space, they presented no testimony rebutting the expert testimony that the property did not meet the definition of preservation. Cf. Section 28 P'ship, Ltd., 772 So.2d 616 (holding that developer did not meet its burden to show that County's action in denying its petition to amend comprehensive plan was so unreasonable and capricious as to not be fairly debatable in face of County's overwhelming evidence, including testimony from prominent experts, supporting its decision).
We conclude that the trial court erred in finding, based on the evidence that was before the City Commission at the public hearing on the Appellants' petition, that the City's denial of the Appellants' petition was fairly debatable. Reasonable persons could not differ in concluding that the Appellants were entitled to a small-scale amendment to the comprehensive plan because their property was improperly designated preservation.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
VILLANTI, J., Concurs specially with opinion.
CASANUEVA, J., Dissents with opinion.
. Small-scale development amendments to comprehensive plans are governed by section 163.3187(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2003).