Case No. GCG00-3011

MANJIT ATWALL, et al.,

Petitioners,

vs.

POLK COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,

Respondent.

___________________________________

This matter is before the court on a petition for writ of certiorari. This court convened oral arguments in this cause on April 7, 2000. Petitioners seek review of the ruling of the Polk Count Board of County Commissioners, the Board, denying their applications for grandfather rights under county ordinance 98-69. This court has jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(c). Certiorari denied.

I.

Petitioners each own homes in the Ridgewood Lakes subdivision. Petitioners assert that each has either operated his or her home as short-term rental or purchased a home intending to use it as a short-term rental. On March 17, 1998, the county amended the short-term rental ordinance in an effort to manage the growth of short-term rentals in certain subdivisions. Pertinent to this discussion, ordinance 98-23, section 3.22F was amended in ordinance 98-32, and again in ordinance 98-69. Under the amended ordinance, grandfather rights would be extended to units which "were being utilized as short-term rentals on March 17, 1998, or which were so utilized within the year preceding March 17, 1998." This provision required applicants to present certain documents on or before September 17, 1998. The specified documents include rental receipts, licenses, and proof of payment of all taxes.

Petitioners allege that Ridgewood was excluded form the list of subdivisions which could continue to operate short-term rentals under the amended ordinance. Fifty to seventy percent of the homes in Ridgewood operate as short-term rentals. They further allege that the county arbitrarily excluded them from the grandfather exception despite the fact that they submitted the required documents. They maintain the county’s actions unconstitutionally deprived them of the full use of their property. In their appeal, the Board determined that the Petitioners lacked the documents required by 3.22F. This petition followed.

II.

When reviewing an administrative proceeding in a petition for writ of certiorari, this court must determine whether the lower tribunal followed the essential requirements of the law, whether the petitioner was afforded due process, and whether the decision below is supported by competent substantial evidence. Haines City Community Development v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995).

III.

As in the appeal below, the Petitioners present no evidence showing that they meet the requirements of section 3.22F in their petition or in their reply. Charges that the county arbitrarily excluded them from the group of other owners who were allowed to continue to operate their homes as short-term rentals raise a substantive due process claim which is beyond the scope of certiorari review. Nostimo v. City of Clearwater, 594 So. 2d 779, 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Their claim that the county deprived them of the full use of their property has no legal merit. Ammons v. Okeechobee County, 710 So. 2d 641, 645 (Fla. 4^th DCA 1998) (holding that there is no constitutional protection afforded for denial of an occupational license). The operation of a private home as a short-term rental is a business. The denial of grandfather rights does not prevent the Petitioners from operating a short-term rental at all; it merely proscribes the operation of short-term rentals at the residences reflected in their petition. Id. Further, denial does not impinge upon the Petitioners’ rights to own or occupy their homes. The Petitioners have stated no basis for relief.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this cause is DISMISSED.

ORDERED 2 June 2000.

Charles B. Curry
Chief Judge