IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE TWELF TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA BLAKE FLEETWOOD, Petitioner, vs. Case No. Division [This Petition is filed pursuant to Rule Fla. R. App. P. and requires special processing by the Clerk THE TOWN OF LONGBOAT KEY, FLORIDA pursuant to Rule a municipality organized under the laws of the State of Florida; THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF LONGBOAT KEY, FLORIDA and UNICORP NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS, INC. Respondents PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR REVIEW OF QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTION PURSUANT TO RULE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE COME NOW Petitioner, BLAKE FLEETWOOD (?Petitioner?) and hereby ?les this Petition for Writ of Certiorari against the Respondent, THE TOWN OF LONGBOAT KEY, FLORIDA, a municipality organized under the laws of the State of Florida (?Respondent Town?) Respondent, THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF LONGBOAT KEY FLORIDA (?Respondent Commission? and Respondent, UNICORP NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS, INC. (?Unicorp?) and alleges: NATURE OF ACTION This is an action seeking the issuance of a writ of common law certiorari. In this action Petitioner is requesting the Court to judicially review, in its appellate capacity, the ?nal and quasi-judicial administrative actions and decisions of the Respondent Town and Commission in approving a Planned Unit Development Outline Development Plan and the Allocation of Additional Tourism Units (as provided in Town Ordinance 2018-07) and a Final Site Plan (as provided in Town Resolution 2018-01) for real property in the Town of Longboat Key, which property includes property owned by Petitioner. Petitioner contends that the approval actions and decisions of Respondent Town and Commission departed from the essential requirements of the law, lacked competent substantial evidence of compliance with applicable requirements of the law and denied him procedural due process. INTRODUCTION The speci?c act of the local government that is the subject of this Petition is the actions and decisions of the Respondents on March 16, 2018, approving development orders, that is an application for approval of Planned Unit Development Outline Development Plan and the Allocation of Additional Tourism Units, Ordinance 2018-07 (?Land Use Change?) and a Final Site Plan tied to that Land Use Change, Resolution 2018?01 (?Site Plan?) to allow Respondent Unicorp to demolish Petitioner?s property and others on. the site and replace it with a mixed use development to be known as the St. Regis Hotel and Residences, within the Town of Longboat Key (A. EX.1, pp. 1?35 Petitioner is an aggrieved owner of property on the site of the proposed development who is adversely affected by the challenged acts in a manner differing in kind and degree from the rest of the community, who participated in the public hearings on the subject development orders, was granted party status therein by Respondents and who otherwise has standing to maintain this action. Petitioner in this action seeks judicial review of the actions and decisions of the Respondent Town and Commission in approving the Land Use Change and Site Plan and the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the Respondents? actions and decisions and for such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court?s review of the quasi?judicial decision of Respondent Town and Commission includes a determination as to: (1) whether procedural due process was accorded; (2) whether the essential requirements of the law have been observed; and (3) whether the decision is supported by competent evidence. Broward County V. G.B.V. lnt?l, Ltd., 787 So. 2d 838, 843 (Fla. 2001). See also, Falk V. Scott, 19 So. 3d 1103,1104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). REFERENCES TO THE RECORD Those portions of the record of the quasi?judicial proceedings before Respondent Commission that are relied upon by Petitioner in support of his Petition are set forth in the Appendix to this Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which is separately prepared and ?led simultaneously with this Petition in accordance with Rule 9.220, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Appendix is expressly incorporated into and made a part of this Petition. For convenience of reference, the individual documents and materials in the Appendix are paginated in sequential order throughout the Appendix (Bates numbered) but are also identi?ed as separate Exhibits therein. References to Petitioner?s Appendix are as follows: (A. Ex. p. On occasion, references within a page are also provided, for further ease of reference. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT This Court therefore has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to Rules 9.030(c) and 9.100(a) and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Article V, Section 5(b) of the Florida Constitution which authorizes circuit courts to issue writs of certiorari. The actions and decisions of Respondent Town and Commission challenged by Petitioner in this action are quasi?judicial in nature rather than legislative in nature and therefore are properly reviewable by certiorari. The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard county v. Snyder, 627 So.2d 469 (Fla. 1993); Lee County v. Sunbelt Equities Ltd. Partnership, 619 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The Land Use Change and Site Plan are quasi?judicial because they result in the application of a general rule or policy rather than the formulation of one, have an impact on a limited number of persons or property owners and on identi?able parties and interests and the decision is contingent on a fact or facts arrived at from distinct alternatives presented at a hearing. The Board of County Commissioners ofBrevard county v. Snyder, supra. Common law certiorari is available to obtain judicial review of final governmental or administrative actions where the Florida Legislature has failed to provide for review by statutory certiorari, where no other method of direct appellate review proceedings are provided by law and where no other method of appeal is available. Haines City Community Development v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1995), DeGroot v. Shej?eld, 95 So.2d 912 (Fla. 1957) and GW Development Corporation v. Village of North Palm Beach Zoning Board of Adjustment, 317 So.2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). The actions and decisions of the Respondent Town and Commission in approving the Land Use Change and Site Plan is a final administrative action by Respondent Town and Commission. The Florida Legislature has failed to provide for review of those actions and decisions by statutory certiorari, no other method of direct appellate review proceedings of those decisions and actions are provided by law and no other method of appeal is available to Petitioner to challenge them. VENUE This action properly lies in the Circuit Court for Sarasota County, Florida because the real property that is the subject of this controversy, as well as the real property of Petitioner, is located in the portion of the Town of Longboat Key which is located in Sarasota County, Florida. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THIS ACTION All conditions precedent to the institution of this action have occurred or have been performed and Petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies that are available to him with respect to the issues in controversy. SCOPE OF REVIEW Certiorari is an appellate process. City of St. Augustine v. Graubaml, 780 So.2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). City Savings Corp, v. 5&8 Partners, 548 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 13 DCA 1989). In this action therefore, the Court will be acting in an appellate review capacity rather than in its traditional, normal and customary trial capacity involving fact ?nding and initial decision making. Lee County v. Sunbelt Equities Partnership, 619 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). As stated by our Second District Court of Appeals in Lee County v. Sunbelt Equities II in discussing the circuit court?s role in certiorari proceedings: At the circuit level, three questions are asked: whether due process was afforded, Whether the administrative body applied the correct law, and whether its ?ndings are supported by competent, substantial evidence (Lee County, supra, 1003). Thus, in reviewing the actions of Respondent Town and Commission, the Court is authorized only to determine whether Respondent Town and Commission afforded Petitioner due process, observed or departed from the essential requirements of the law and supported their decisions and actions by competent, substantial evidence. City of West Palm Beach Zoning Board of Appeals v. Education Development Center, 504 So.2d 1385 (Fla. 4ih DCA 1987). STANDARD OF REVIEW In reviewing the actions and decisions of the Respondent Town and Commission, the Court must subject those actions and decisions to strict judicial scrutiny. The actions and decisions complained of do not constitute legislative action requiring judicial deferential review as to reasonableness. Board of County Commissioners of Brevard v. Snyder, 627 So.2d 469 (Fla. 1993). Florida?s Fourth District Court of Appeal has also con?rmed that the courts should use strict judicial scrutiny in reviewing a local government?s quasi-judicial land use decisions. Section .28 Partnership Ltd. 12. Martin County, 642 So.2d 609 (Fla. 4?h DCA 1994). However, even if the standard of review was not strict scrutiny but instead the deferential fairly debatable standard applicable to legislative acts of the Respondent Town and Commission, the court would still be compelled to quash the actions and decisions of Respondent Town and Commission. PARTIES Petitioner is an affected party in this matter. He was granted affected party status by unanimous vote of Town Commission, without objection by any other party or person (A. EX. 2, p. 41). This was based upon the fact that Petitioner owns real property within the site of subject site (Condominium Units 38 and 118) (A. Ex. 5, pp. 151 and 206) and as such would be adversely impacted much more than the other members of the community at large by being subjected to a Land Use Change and Site Plan which he does not support, advancing the creation of a development which he does not approve, to replace his property. This includes a grant of authority to Respondent Unicorp to demolish Petitioner?s property even before Respondent Unicorp gains full control and ownership of the site, upon a demolition order by Respondent Town, without even any requirement that Respondent Unicorp wait until Petitioner has exhausted all appeals of that order EX. 1 p. 9?10 (paragraph 5) and p. 10-11 (paragraph 60) and p. 26-27 (paragraph 5) and p. 27 (paragraph Further, the Land Use Change ?runs with. the land?, creating an objectionable encumbrance and conditions on Petitioner?s property without his consent Ex.l, p. 9 (paragraph Additionally, the Land Use Change and Site Plan repeal the extension of nonconforming uses which Petitioner currently enjoys for his units, which otherwise are extended until June 28, 2020 by Town Resolution 2016?18 and applicable state lawand 28). Respondent Town is a municipality established pursuant to Article Section 2 of the Florida Constitution and Chapters 165 and 166, Florida Statutes. Respondent Commission is the legislative governing body of the Respondent Town in which the general legislative powers of the municipality are vested, including the final review and approval of various land use or land development petitions, applications, requests, permits and orders authorized by the Respondent Town?s Code of Ordinances, including the Land Use Change and Site Plan. Respondent Unicorp was recognized by Respondents Town and Commission as the applicant for the Land Use Change and was accorded party status on that basis (A. Ex. 1, pp. 1?35; A. Ex. 2, pp.36?58. Respondent Unicorp does not own any of the subject property (A. EX. 5, pp. 144-221). No other person or entity was granted party status in the subject proceedings nor participated in the public hearings in that capacity (A. Ex. 2, pp. GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS On March 16, 2018, Respondents Town and Town Commission approved the Land Use Change and Site Plan (A. EX. 1, pp. 1-35; A. EX.2, pp. 57-68) to allow Respondent Unicorp to demolish Petitioner?s property and other property on the site and replace it with a mixed use development, to be known as the St. Regis Hotel and Residences, within the Town of Longboat Key. The general scope of the subject project is illustrated by pages and of Respondent Unicorp?s Outline Development Plan (included in the Land Use Change), the ?rst of which is an aerial of the site showing the existing land and improvements of the Condominium and the Out Parcels and the second of 10 which is the Conceptual Master Plan for the proposed development on the site (A. Ex 3, pp. 59-60). While the ordinance adepting the Land Use Change and the resolution adopting the Site Plan provide that Respondent Unicorp may not obtain a building permit for construction of its development until it obtains full ownership and control of the site, they also provide that Respondent Unicorp may and shall demolish buildings and other structures on the property upon the Town?s ?issuance of a ?nal Condemnation Order and Notice of Intent to Demolish buildings on the property? EX. 1 p. 9?10 (paragraph 5) and p. 10?11 (paragraph 6c) and p. 26?27 (paragraph 5) and p. 27 (paragraph Although the ordinance and resolution extend a deadline for Respondent Unicorp to complete its demolition in the event that Order is appealed (to the date that appeal is denied), very signi?cantly they do not require that Respondent Unicorp halt or suspend its demolition pending the appeal EX. 1 p. 9?10 (paragraph 5) and p. 10~ll (paragraph 6c) and p. 26?27 (paragraph 5) and p. 27 (paragraph The site consists of approximately 18 acres. Approximately 1.5 acres consists of the Colony Beach Tennis Club, a Condominium (?the Condominium?), consisting of 237 units together with common elements, 11 according to the Declaration of Condominium thereof recorded in Of?cial Records Book 1025, Pages 200 et seq. of the Public Records of Sarasota County, Florida (A. Ex. 4, p. Approximately 3 acres consists of property not dedicated to that condominium ownership (?Out Parcels?). (A. EX. 1, p. 2 (5th and 6th Whereas clauses)]. Petitioner owns Units 3B and 118 of the Condominium (A. Ex. 5, pp. 151 and 206). As such, he also possesses an undivided share in the ownership of the common elements of the Condominium, which is that portion of the Condominium property not included in the units. Sec. 718.103(8) and (11) and I Florida Statutes. Rogers Ford Construction Corp. v. Carlandia Corp, 636 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 1993). Unicorp does not own any of the property in the subject site. (A. Ex. 5, A different company, Unicorp Colony Units, LLC, owns 28 of the 237 units in the Condominium. (Its managing member is Unicorp Acquisitions, LLC, of which Respondent Unicorp is managing member). Also, the nine Out Parcels are partially owned by five limited liability companies in which a partnership is manager, which in turn has as its general partner a limited liability company of which Charles Whittall is the manager. Charles Whittall is the president of 12 Respondent Unicorp. The other partial owner of six of the Out Parcels is Breakpointe, LLC, which has no stated af?liation with Respondent Unioorp (A. Ex. 8, pp. 265-266; A. EX. 5, pp. 144?221); ARGUMENT The Respondent Town and Commission?s approval of the Land Use Change is a departure from the essential requirements of law because the application for that approval was not ??led and signed by or on behalf of the landowner by an authorized agent? (emphasis added), as required by Section of the Town of Longboat Key Zoning Code. Instead, at best, it was ?led and signed by an authorized agent for only a part of the landowner (as the landowner consists of multiple persons and entities). Also, the approval is a departure from the essential requirements of law because that Code provision is violated by the failure of that application, as ?led, to identify ?each and every person having an ownership in the subject property.? 13 Further, in violation of that Code provision, instead of the landowner, Respondent Town and Commission recognized Respondent Unicorp as the Applicant in the approval of the Land Use Change and Site Plan and granted it the rights and privileges of the Applicant thereunder. Additionally, the approval of the Site Plan is a departure from the essential requirements of law because the Application for Site Plan Approval failed to fully identify the ?Owner? of the property as required by the form which is mandatory for that Application under Section 158.097 of the Town of Longboat Key Zoning Code The record in the approval of the Land Use Change and Site Plan also lacks competent substantial evidence of compliance with these requirements of the Zoning Code and in support of certain essential ?ndings of fact by Respondent Town and Commission relating to those Code Requirements. The Land Use change also denies Petitioner due process by empowering Respondent Unicorp to demolish the buildings containing Petitioner?s I4 condominium units upon the Town?s issuance of a demolition order without the necessity to await the conclusion of an appeal of that order by Petitioner. Section of the Town of Longboat Key Zoning Code provides, in pertinent part, as follows (A. EX. 6, p. 223), emphasis added: Application requirements. An application for an outline development plan for a planned unit development, including full payment of an application fee as set forth by resolution of the town commission, shall be ?led and signed by or on behalf of the landowner by an authorized agent, with the planning and zoning of?cial. The Application for Outline Development Plan for the Land Use Change, dated February 2, 2018, is signed on the line for the Applicant?s signature by Brenda L. Patten as Agent. The Application does not state on whose behalf it was ?led, that is for whom Brenda Patten signed as Agent. However, the Application does identify as ?all person(s) having ownership in subject property? ?ve of the six owners of the Out Parcels, that is Brandon Commons, Lake Brandon Shoppes, Metro Pointe, Metro Plaza, LLC and WPT Outparcel, LLC., as well as Unicorp Colony Units, LLC as the owner of 31 units in the Condominium and a list of unit owners in the Condominium. (A. Ex. 7, pp. 235- 264) 15 A Property Owner Af?davit, dated July 20, 2017, appointing Brenda L. Patten as Agent to act on their behalf for the Land Use Change and Site Plan, was provided by Unicorp Colony Units, LLC, as the owner of 28 of the 237 Condominium Units and by ?ve of the six owners of the Out Parcels, that is Brandon Commons, Lake Brandon Shoppes, Metro Pointe, Metro Plaza, LLC and WPT Outparcel, LLC (A. EX. 8, pp. 265-266). A Property Owner Af?davit, dated November 7, 2017, appointing Brenda L. Patten as Agent to act on its behalf as representative of owners at 1620 Gulf of Mexico Drive, for the Land Use Change and Site Plan, was provided by Colony Beach Tennis Club Association, Inc. (?the Association?) (A. Ex. 9, pp. 267-? 268). The Association is the owner of seven of the 237 Condominium Units, that is Units 1238, 124$, 2233, 1528, 2478, and E. (A. Ex. 5, pp. 144221). No Property Owner Af?davit or other instrument was provided by the other owner of the Out Parcels, Breakpointe, LLC (?Breakpointe?), appointing Brenda L. Patten as Agent or otherwise, nor did Breakpointe sign and file to join in the application for the outline development plan for the planned unit development. No Property Owner Af?davit or other instrument was provided by Petitioner nor by any of the other owners of the remaining 202 units in the Condominium (237 less 31 ultimately owned by Unicorp Colony Units, LLC and seven owned 16 by the Association) appointing Brenda L. Patten as Agent or otherwise, nor did such unit owners sign and ?le to join in the application for the outline development plan for the planned unit development. Accordingly, the application for the Land Use Change was not ??led and signed by or on behalf of the landowner by an authorized agent?, as explicitly required by Section l) of the Town of Longboat Key Zoning Code. ?The landowner? is a term of ordinary usage, as is more particularly the word ?the?. It is clear and unambiguous. It does not mean one or more of several partial owners of the land which is the subject of the application, amounting to less than all such owners. If that was the case, Petitioner as the owner of two of the Condominium units could apply for a land use change and right of demolition on the entirety of the Condominium and the Out Parcels. Instead, to protect the rights and interests of all of the various owners of the subject property, the Town properly requires that ?the landowner? of the subject property, in its entirety, ?le and sign the application, directly or through the landowner?s agent. That was not done in this instance. The form of the Application for Outline Development Plan is consistent with the Zoning Code cited herein, in that the signature line calls for ?Applicant?s Signature? and below that line reads, ?(If applicant is not the property owner, a 17 property owner af?davit will be required)?, evidently authorizing the Agent to Sign on the signature line for the property owner as the Applicant. (A. Ex. 7, p. 240) However, the form as completed for the Land Use Change violates Section of the Town of Longboat Key Zoning Code because it does not ?List all person(s) having ownership in the subject property? nor does it include ?a veri?ed statement, including a certi?cate of ownership, showing each and every person having a legal ownership in the subject property? with an exception for the interests in publicly held and traded corporations.? That is because each and every such person is not listed, including speci?cally Breakpointe, Ltd, LLC as a partial owner of six of the nine Out Parcels. (A. Ex. 7, pp. 241?264). Again, the Association only owns seven of the 237 units in the Condominium. It does not own the condominium property outside the boundaries of the units, that is the common elements. The common elements are owned by the 237 unit owners in undivided proportionate shares. Sec. 718.103(8) and (l l) and Florida Statutes. Rogers Ford Construction Corp. v. Carlandia Corp, 636 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 1993). As such, the unit owners were required to sign the Application for Land Use change or authorize an Agent to 18 sign for them, not the Association, as the Association does not own the prOperty (other than seven units). Nothing in the Declaration of Condominium nor in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws of the Association grants the Association, by action alone of its Board of Directors, the power to be an Applicant for a planned unit development designation or other development plan for the condominium property which would replace the condominium buildings and the units, as would the Land Use Change and Site Plan. The Development Plan for the condominium property is set forth in Article 4 of the Declaration of Condominium and its amendment requires the af?rmative vote of 75% of the entire Board of Directors and 75% of all unit owners, or 80% of all unit owners without that Board approval, which amendment and vote has not occurred (A. EX. 4, p. 61-143, including in particular as to the Development Plan pp. 63?68). Further, such action would violate section Florida Statutes, which requires the unanimous joinder and consent of all unit owners and all owners of liens on units to change the boundaries of units or to alter unit ownership, which would occur by the implementation of the Land Use Change and Site Plan. It would also violate section Florida Statutes and Section 6.6 of the Declaration, which require the approval of 75% of all unit l9 owners to materially alter the common elements, which means to perceptibly or palpably alter their appearance, ?lnction or use, which would occur by the implementation of the Land Use Change and Site Plan. Sterling Village Condominium Association, Inc. V. Breitenbach, 252 So.2d 685 (4th DCA Fla. 1971) In any event, even if the lack of authority by the Association Board of Directors to ?le for the Land Use Change on behalf of all 237 unit owners is disregarded, as well as the absence of any application for the Land Use Change by or for Breakpointe, LLC, such that the application for the outline development plan for the planned unit development (the Land Use Change) was ??led and signed by or on behalf of the landowner by an authorized agent? (which, again, it was not), the Land Use Change remains in Violation of Section of the Town of Longboat Key Zoning Code. That is because under the Code only the landowner may ?le an application for an outline development plan for the planned unit development (the Land Use Change) and Respondent Unicorp did not ?le the application for the Land Use Change. That apparently occurred because Respondent Unicorp cannot even claim to be a partial owner of the land. 20 Accordingly, there was no lawful basis under its Zoning Code for Respondent Town and Commission to recognize and accept Respondent Unicorp as the Applicant for the Land Use Change and to grant Respondent Unicorp rights and privileges as the Applicant in the Land Use Change. Nevertheless, throughout the proceedings Respondent Town and Commission deemed Respondent Unicorp to be the Applicant and approved the Land Use Change on that basis, with all approvals, rights and privileges granted to Respondent Unicorp as the Applicant. (A. Ex. 1, pp. 1?35; A. EX. 2, pp. 36? 58). Town Ordinance 2018-07, the Land Use Change, states that ?on or about July 24, 2017, Unicorp ?led an initial Site Plan application. along with a text amendment with the Town that seeks to redevelop the site with a combination of hotel and multi?farnily residential units on the site.? Ex. 1, p.4 (8th Whereas clause on that page)]. There is no evidence in the record to support that ?nding of fact (which, if true, would violate the cited Zoning Code, which requires the Applicant to be the landowner). In fact, the Application for Outline Development Plan which is in the record, although dated February 2, 2018, bears only the signature of Brenda Patten as the Applicant, dated July 14, 2017, above the phrase, ?(If the applicant is not the property owner, a property 21 owner af?davit will be required)?. The Application nowhere identi?es Respondent Unicorp as the Applicant (A. EX. 7, p. 23 5-264). There is also no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the following ?ndings of fact in Ordinance 2018-07: WHEREAS, Unicorp National Developments, Inc. ("Unicorp") acquired a majority ownership interest and apparent control of the Out Parcels in July 2016 and received authorization from the Association's Board of Directors to act as the Association's representative in all matters concerning redevelopment of the property and the Association's interests in the Colony; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2016, the Town received a letter from the Association's Board of Directors authorizing Unicorp National Developments, Inc. and Unicorp Acquisitions, LLC to act as the Association?s representative with respect to the redevelopment of the Colony; and WHEREAS, the Association through its legal counsel (Jeff Warren, Esq.) has repeatedly attested to and reaf?rmed the Association?s consent and authorization to have Unicorp act as the Association's agent in the redevelopment of the Colony site and provided the Town with Board meeting minutes documenting said authorization provided by the Association's Board of Directors; and WHEREAS, Unicorp has given Brenda Patten, Esq. authorization to act on their behalf as agent for all applications required for development of the Colony; and (A. EX. 1, pp. 3-4) Also, very signi?cantly, the record contains no ?property owner affidavit? by any property owner appointing Respondent Unicorp as Agent to ?le and Sign 22 as Applicant for the Land Use Change or Site Plan, as required by the Town Forms with which compliance is required Sections and 158.097of the Town of Longboat Key Zoning Code . Although the record contains agreements from the Association Board of Directors to ?authorize Unicorp to proceed with the development plan proposed for the Colony being presented for approval to the Town of Longboat Key? (A. EX. 11, p. 274), as well as approving Respondent Unicorp?s plan to seek termination of the condominium (A. EX. 12, pp. 276?409), agreeing that Respondent Unicorp is ?entitled? to pursue governmental approvals to develop the site (A. Ex. 12, pp. 300301) and making other expressions of support for the Land Use Change, nothing in the record purports to appoint Respondent Unicorp as Agent of the Association to apply for the Land Use Change or Site Plan. Again, in any event, no property owner af?davit was ?led for that purpose, as required by the forms mandated by the Town of Longboat Key Zoning Code. There is not even anything in the record by which any of the Out Parcel owners appoint Respondent Unicorp as Agent for the Application for the Land Use Change. The Application for Site Plan Review (A. EX. 10, p. 269?272) is also in violation of the Town Code. Section 158.097 of the Town of Longboat Key Zoning Code provides, ?Any application for site plan approval shall be submitted on a form provided by the town (A. EX. 6, p. 232). The form for an Application for Site Plan Review requires the identification of ?Owner? (A. EX. 10, p. 269). Rather than fully identifying the owner of the subject property, the subject Application for Site Plan Review states, ?See entities in attached sheet? (note the singular) and the attached sheet, covered by a ?Verified Statement and Certi?cate of Ownership? lists only five of the six Out Parcel. owners, omitting Breakpointe, LLC as the sixth such owner and omitting the unit owners of the Condominium. Although the record follows that sheet with a list of Condominium unit owners, again the reference to Owner is solely to the ?entities in the attached sheet? followed by the sheet listing some of the Out Parcel owners. Both the Application for Site Plan Review and the Veri?ed Statement and Certi?cate of Ownership are signed by Brenda Patten. There was also a Verified Statement and Certificate of Ownership filed with the Application for the Site Plan Ex. 10 pp. 271?272). It was also falsely incomplete, by omitting Breakpointe, LLC as one of the six owners of six of the nine Out Parcels. On March 5, 2018, at the first public hearing on the Land Use Change and Site Plan, Brenda L. Patten submitted for the record a letter of that date with a 24 revised Veri?ed Statement and Certi?cate of Ownership, signed by her and dated March 2, 2018. The letter states that it is to ?up-date? the previous Veri?ed Statement and Certi?cate of Ownership by including the ownership interests of Breakpointe, LLC in the Out Parcels. It is not mentioned that such ownership interests were in existence when the previous Veri?ed Statement and Certi?cate of Ownership was ?led. As such, all that submission accomplished was to prove that the Veri?ed Statement of Certi?cate of Ownership submitted with the Applications was false, whether inadvertently or to hide the fact that Respondent Unicorp could not argue that it had all of the ownership interest in the subject property (?the landowner?) joining as the Applicant for the Land Use Change and Site Plan. Because the Veri?ed Statement and Certi?cate of Ownership submitted with the Application was false, it was a departure from the essential requirements of law for it to have been considered and approved by Respondent Town and Commission. In addition to these departures from the essential requirements of law and lack of competent substantial evidence in the record to support ?ndings of fact, the Land Use Change, as detailed above, fails to accord Petitioner his right of due process by empowering Respondent Unicorp to demolish the buildings containing Petitioner?s condominium units upon the Town?s issuance of a demolition order 25 without the necessity to await the conclusion of an appeal of that order by Petitioner. (A. EX.1, pp. 9?11). In sum, this is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. To comply with the Town Zoning Code, Respondent Unicorp should wait until it has the full ownership of the subject property through termination of the Condominium and a partition sale of the Out Parcels. Then it can ?le and Sign, directly or through its Agent, as ?the landowner? of property, as required by the Code, for its land use changes. The failure of Respondent Unicorp to do so and the actions of Respondent Town and Commission to require it, or to alternatively have Unicorp appointed as Agent for the landowner in its entirety in the manner required by its Code, constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law, unsupported by any competent, substantial evidence in the record. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully request the Court to grant and issue a writ of certiorari ?nding that the actions and decisions of the Respondent Town and Commission approving the Land Use Change and Site Plan departed from the essential elements of the law or otherwise failed to apply the correct law, and was not based in competent and substantial evidence; quash and reverse the actions and decisions of the Respondent Town and Commissions? approval of 26 Use Change and Site Plan including quashing and rescinding its approval as set forth in Town of Longboat Key Ordinance 2018?07 and Resolution 2018-01; ordering and directing the Respondents to take all such further actions as may be necessary and consistent with the opinion and mandate of the court; and awarding the Petitioner the costs and expenses that it and its attorney have incurred in connection with this action, including but not limited to filing fees; and granting the Petitioners such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. DATED: April 16, 2018 DANIEL J.OBEK, BSQUTRE Florida Bar No. 291323 MARK A. HANSON, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 0472182 The Law Of?ces of Lobeck Hanson, RA. 2033 Main Street, Suite 403 Sarasota, Florida 34237-6063 (941) 955?6622 Fax: (941) 951-4469 Designated E-vMail Addresses: Primary: dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com and mhanson@lobeckhanson.eom Secondary: iwilson@lobeckhanson.com Attorneys for Petitioner 27 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I DO HEREBY CERTIFY to the ?ling of this Petition for Writ of Certiorari and accompanying Appendix on the date below and service on the Respondents, The Town of Longboat Key, Florida and The Town Commission of The Town of Longboat Key, Florida of a true and correct copy hereof to Maggie D. Mooney- Portale, Esquire, by electronic service to (e-mail); and on Respondent Unicorp National Developments, Inc. of a true and correct copy hereof to Robert Lincoln, Esquire, by electronic transmission to robert. lincoln@?alandlaw corn mail) through the E?Filing Portal this 16th day oprril, 2018 - I Daniel]. L??beck, Esquire Mark A. Hanson, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Petition complies with the font requirements of Rule 9.100, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Daniel] Lbbyeck, Esquire Mark A. Hanson, Esquire 28