The Crown can do no wrong, except where it does: the history, development, and basis of legal standards applicable to Florida local government zoning decisions.

• Author: Ansbacher, Sidney F.

The applicable legal standard of review of local government decisions is crucial. It can dictate whether the local government decision is upheld or even whether the action is merited. The predominant standard, the rational basis test, (1) reflects a fundamental policy determination that standard upholds. Government decisions should be upheld if done in an objectively good-faith and defensible manner; otherwise, society would break down. The rational basis standard's progeny, the fairly debatable rule, long held sway in Florida. The fairly debatable standard mirrors the rational basis test in upholding a decision if any "reasonable basis or fairly debatable basis" arguably supports the decision. (2)

Nonetheless, even the rational basis or fairly debatable test does not protect governmental decisions that are completely irrational. The legislative and judicial branches created numerous, far less deferential standards for certain governmental acts. The most well-known of these is the Snyder rule for quasi-judicial zonings. (3) This article attempts to delineate the core Florida standards of zoning review, how and why they exist, what they mean, and, most significantly, the respectively related standard of review.

How Is Local Government Different?

Anyone who has survived grade school civics knows American society functions at three basic tiers: national, state, and local. Our Constitution places the federal government on top, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause (4) of the Constitution and leaves to "the states" and "the people" those powers that are not reserved to the federal government. (5) Whether one ascribes to the "uncooperative" or "cooperative" federalist model, (6) those two levels of government enjoy generally understood allocations of authority.

Local government, however, generally enjoys only the authority that the state grants to it. Even if a local government wields "home rule" authority, the legislature or some other state level authority must first create, and then delineate, the existence and extent of that home rule power. (7) American law governing the delegation of authority to local government stems from Dillon's rule, which held that local government holds only expressly delegated authority; and Cooley's rule, which maintains local government possesses certain inherent authority. (8)

Prior to the 1968 Florida Constitution, our state followed Dillon's rule. (9) The constitution at art. VIII, [section]1, authorized home rule authority for both municipalities and counties. The 1973 Florida Legislature passed the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act, codified at F.S. Ch. 166. A leading article summarized the act's impact as "dictat[ing] that local governments should be allowed to act if not clearly directed otherwise by the state." (10)

Counties' home rule authority is more nuanced. Article VIII, [section]1(c), authorizes "charter" and "noncharter" counties. Noncharter counties may exercise "all powers of self-government not inconsistent with general law, or with special law approved by vote of the electors." Charter counties may enact ordinances that are "not inconsistent with general law." (11)

The constitution confers on non-charter counties' authority "as is provided by general or special law." (12) F.S. [section]125.01 allows noncharter counties to perform acts that are "not inconsistent with the law," "are in the common interest of the people of the power," and are "not specifically prohibited by law."

The law of preemption and of conflict is complex. (13) Nonetheless, our state's exploding population and related burdens lead local governments to test the limits of their authority. This interplay requires courts and administrative authorities to examine local government acts under a myriad of lenses.

The Rational Basis Test

As stated above, the most well-established legal standard of review of a governmental action is the "rational basis" test. The U.S. Supreme Court created this standard in Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 132 (1877), stating: "If no state of circumstances could exist to justify such a statute, then we may declare this one void, because in excess of the legislative powers of the [s]tate. But if it could, we must presume it did."

Applied to Zoning: The Fairly Debatable Test

Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926), established the authority of local government to zone real property. The Euclid Court extended police power nuisance authority to uphold local government power to separate "higher uses" from other uses that were deemed to be incompatible. Euclid established the basic zoning right of municipalities against due process and equal protection challenges.

Nonetheless, "Euclidean zoning" established a stark zoning hierarchy with strict boundaries that is difficult to maintain when property owners seek either expansion or infill. The Court did not intrude on the locality's legislative zoning plan. Rather, it held that the zoning plan would be upheld if it was "fairly...