Code board denies stay request in Leverkusen Land appeal; jurisdiction moves to circuit court

The Safety Harbor Code Enforcement Board on March 19 denied a request from respondent Leverkusen Land LLC to stay enforcement of a December 18 board order while the company pursues a circuit-court appeal.

Respondent’s attorney, Amy Dilday of Englander Fisher, asked the board to suspend enforcement of the order while the appeal proceeds, arguing the respondent is likely to succeed on appeal and would be harmed by enforcement in the interim. The city’s attorney (identified in the hearing as Ms. La Correa) opposed the stay, urging the board to consider public interest and arguing the stay is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted absent a showing of likely success and irreparable injury.

Dilday’s written motion said the legal issues on appeal are primarily questions of law — whether the city’s land-development code prohibits the activities at issue on the property plaza — and cited a recent Second District Court of Appeal decision, MGM of West Florida v. Manatee County, as clarifying the appellate standard of review in similar cases. She argued the circuit court will perform a de novo legal review of the board’s order and that the private reciprocal easement agreement at issue in the case should not control interpretation of the land-development code.

The city countered that the site plan and prior development order reserve the plaza as open space to be used for public gatherings and that the private reciprocal easement agreement between the property’s predecessor and adjacent owners supports the city’s interpretation. City counsel also argued that the board’s December 18 order rested on an analysis of site-plan conditions and code definitions, and that the respondent had not met the burden to show a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm absent a stay.

After extended argument from both attorneys and questions from board members, a motion to grant the stay was placed on the floor. The board voted 6–1 to deny the stay; Holly Myers was recorded as the lone vote in favor. The board chair directed staff to prepare a written order documenting the denial. The board also acknowledged that, by denying the stay, it has lost jurisdiction to hold the previously scheduled May compliance/noncompliance hearing while the circuit-court appeal proceeds; staff told the board it will forward the circuit court’s mandate or decision when available.

The denial leaves the December 18 order in place while the appeal is litigated: the city may continue to pursue code enforcement remedies consistent with the appellate process, and if the circuit court later rules for the respondent the city may be required to return fines or fees collected in the interim, depending on the court’s judgment.