Robert Apgar Susan L. Trevarthen Florida’s local governments have long struggled to find the fairest balance between the due process requirements of “quasijudicial" proceedings and the rights of all citizens to be heard in public hearings on land use decisions. The Environmental and Land Use Law Section (ELULS) of The Florida Bar, is working to develop model rules for “quasi-judicial” proceedings to guide local governments. This session will give planners an overview of the ELULS’s developing recommendations, and an opportunity to give their input on important questions such as “who should be allowed to present evidence or cross examine witnesses”, and “should a written final order be required?”

1. Questions for Quasi-Judicial Discussion
Florida’s local governments have long struggled to find the fairest balance between the due
Robert C. Apgar
process requirements of “quasi-judicial" proceedings and the rights of all citizens to be
heard in public hearings on land use decisions. The Environmental and Land Use Law
Section (ELULS) of The Florida Bar, is working to develop model rules for “quasi-judicial”
(QJ) proceedings to guide local governments. This session will give planners an overview
of the ELULS’s developing recommendations, and an opportunity to give their input on
important questions such as “who should be allowed to present evidence or cross examine
witnesses”, and “should a written final order be required.”
Discussion Questions:
1. In addition to the applicant and staff, who should be allowed to present evidence at a quasi-
judicial hearing?
a. Any citizen who attends the hearing?
b. Any person who receives notice by mail?
c. Any person identified as a “party” by statute or local regulation?
d. Any person whose substantial interests will be affected?
2. What are the appropriate rights to participate in the hearing for interested persons who do not
wish to be a full party to the quasi-judicial proceeding?
3. Who should be allowed to cross-examine witnesses?
4. Should all witnesses be required to testify under oath?
5. Are time limitations appropriate for the presentation of evidence by each party? If so, what
amount time? Should there be different time limits for parties and non-parties?
6. Should persons who wish to be full parties to a QJ be required to give notice of their intention to
participate prior to the QJ hearing (e.g. five or ten days prior)?
7. Should there be a deadline prior to the hearing for the submittal of all evidence for or against
the application so that it can be provided to all parties prior to the hearing?
8. Should a written final decision containing findings of fact and legal conclusions be required in
every QJ hearing?
9. Would the QJ process be improved by requiring special masters/hearing officers to make the
final decision rather than a political body? If so, should a special master be provided in all cases,
or only when requested?
10. Is their utility in having more standardized procedures throughout the state for QJ hearings or
are the details best left to the discretion of each local government?
11. Overall, do you think the QJ process as we know it now is effective? If not, what are your top 3
suggestions for improvement?