County attorney briefs planning commissioners on quasi‑judicial rules, evidence and ex parte risks

Denise Landis, Citrus County attorney, spent the second half of the July 17 Planning and Development Commission meeting giving a legal briefing to commissioners on quasi‑judicial procedure, evidence rules, ex parte communications and other land‑use topics relevant to how the commission must hear and decide applications.

Landis told the commission that applicants carry the initial burden of proof (citing the Snyder case) and that legal arguments from attorneys are not evidence unless supported by sworn factual testimony or qualified expert witnesses. “You can't base your decision on the argument of counsel. You must have factual testimony,” she said.

Landis reviewed roles and evidence sources the commission should rely on: applicant testimony and expert witnesses (engineers, planners), staff technical reports, and public comment (which she said are not parties in the proceeding but can provide factual testimony). She cautioned against independent research and outside contacts and urged commissioners to decline off‑record discussions and to forward any outside communications to staff so they become part of the record.

On ex parte communications, Landis said Citrus County has not adopted the state statutory scheme that some counties use to make certain ex parte contacts non‑prejudicial; under existing case law (Jennings and related decisions) off‑record communications are presumed prejudicial and can be grounds for appellate reversal if a challenged decision relied on such contacts. She said one possible path is for the Board of County Commissioners to adopt the statute and a disclosure process, but until that happens she recommended commissioners avoid ex parte contacts.

Other guidance Landis gave included:

- Distinction between the comprehensive plan and the Land Development Code (the comp plan is the county’s guiding policy document; the LDC implements it). She said the Future Land Use Map (GFLUM) is part of the comprehensive plan (Chapter 10). - Concurrency in Citrus County applies to a limited set of services (Landis cited solid waste, stormwater, water and sewer) and does not include roadway capacity as a concurrency test, though access management and turning‑lane requirements are reviewed by technical staff. - Floor‑area ratio and ISR questions are controlled by the comp plan and the land‑use category; site‑plan or project‑wide deviations are not explicitly authorized in the LDC and have been the source of ad hoc decisions in the past. - Development agreements are governed by state statute; they are negotiated with the BOCC and are not tied to a fixed lot size or dollar threshold. - New statutory timelines require a board decision within 180 days after a complete application is filed, which may accelerate negotiations and increase instances where applicants request continuances.

Commissioners asked procedural questions about sworn testimony, whether staff can supply technical backups (environmental health, engineering) to rebut applicant experts and how to handle written, signed and sealed reports when the certifying engineer is not present. Landis told the commissioners they must weigh written evidence and assess credibility; if the certifying witness is not present the board must give the document the weight it deems appropriate. She emphasized that staff technical reports are competent evidence and that applicants should arrange for expert witnesses to be present if they wish to contest technical findings.

Landis closed by urging the commission to deliberate openly in public hearings, to rely on the recorded evidence, and to avoid private communications about pending matters. She noted the BOCC is considering whether to adopt the statutory ex parte disclosure framework and that the commission will have further opportunities to discuss Land Development Code updates and comprehensive plan amendments in upcoming workshops.