Legislation Details

File #: 27-0042   
Type: Departmental Quasi Judicial Status: Agenda Ready
In control: Board of County Commissioners
On agenda: 9/29/2026 Final action:
Title: ARTICLE 10 APPEAL: RE-CONSIDERATION OF ARTICLE 10 APPEAL BY CORY BEATON REGARDING DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMIT NO. BLD2025080317 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
Attachments: 1. C. Beaton Art. 10 Not. of Appeal to BOCC_Combined PDF.pdf, 2. Notice of Appeal May_14.pdf, 3. Resolution.pdf, 4. Beaton Exhibits I - L.pdf

PLACEMENT: Departmental - Quasi-Judicial

TITLE:

title  

ARTICLE 10 APPEAL: RE-CONSIDERATION OF ARTICLE 10 APPEAL BY CORY BEATON REGARDING DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMIT NO. BLD2025080317 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE

end

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

executive summary

Pursuant to Section 10.12, Land Development Regulations (LDR), Martin County Code, Cory Beaton appealed the denial of Building Permit No. BLD2025080317 for the construction of a single-family residence on property located at 18250 SE Loxahatchee River Road, Jupiter, Florida 33458.  The Board of County Commissioners (Board) heard the appeal on August 11, 2026, and rendered its decision in favor of the Appellant.  On August 25, 2026, the BCC voted to reconsider the final decision. 

body

DEPARTMENT: Growth Management                     

PREPARED BY:                      Name: Elysse A. Elder, Esq., B.C.S                     

                     Title:                     County Attorney                     

REQUESTED BY: Cory Beaton                                          

 

PRESET:     

PROCEDURES: Quasi-Judicial Appeal                     

 

BACKGROUND/RELATED STRATEGIC GOAL:

 

On Thursday May 14, 2026, pursuant to Section 10.12., LDR, Martin County Code (MCC), Cory Beaton filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the denial of building permit No. BLD2025080317 for the construction of a single-family residence on property owned by Mr. Beaton located at 18250 SE Loxahatchee River Road, Jupiter. Pursuant to Section 10.12., LDR, MCC, the filing of an administrative appeal suspends the finality of action being appealed until the appeal proceedings are concluded.

 

On June 17, 2026, County Administrator Don Donaldson conducted an administrative review meeting regarding building permit No. BLD2025080317. On June 30, 2026, the County Administrator issued a determination that the building permit was appropriately denied.

 

On July 17, 2026, Mr. Beaton filed a notice of appeal pursuant to Section 10.12.E. LDR, MCC, initiating an appeal to the BCC of the County Administrator’s June 30, 2026, decision. Section 10.12.E.3.a, LDR, MCC, requires the Board to consider the appeal within thirty (30) days after the notice of appeal is filed and deemed complete. On August 11, 2026, the Board heard the appeal and, by a vote of 3-2, instructed staff to issue the building permit. 

 

On August 25, 2026, the Board voted to reconsider the action taken on August 11, 2026, based on new information that was discovered after the administrative review meeting that contradicted the information the Appellant provided to staff during the building permit review and to the County Administrator and the Board in the administrative review meetings.  As a result, the prior decision was stayed, and the appeal remains pending.

 

ISSUES:

 

Article 10 Appeal Procedures:

 

As established in Section 10.12.E., LDR, MCC, (set forth below) the Board acts in an appellate capacity and follows the following procedure:

 

Section 10.12.E., Appeal to the Board.

1.                     Initiation of appeal. See Section 10.12.B.

2.                     Requirements for a complete notice of appeal. See Section 10.12.C.

3.                     Conduct of Appeal.

a.                     Schedule. The Board shall consider the appeal within 30 days after the notice of appeal has been filed. Notice of the time and date of the meeting shall be provided to the appellant and to the applicant, if the appellant is not the applicant, at least five working days prior to the date of the meeting.

b.                     Participants. The participants in the appeal to the Board shall consist of the appellant and/or the appellant’s representative, the County Administrator and the County Attorney. In addition, the director of the department whose final action has been appealed shall be a participant. If the appellant is not the applicant , the applicant and/or the applicant’s representative may attend the meeting and shall be entitled to participate as an intervenor.

c.                     Conduct of the administrative review meeting. The Board shall consider the record and provide the appellant, an applicant, and the County with an opportunity to be heard.

d.                     Scope. The Board shall consider only those facts established at the time of the original decision that is the subject of the appeal and shall not consider new information or evidence. The decision of the Board shall be limited to determining whether the County administrative officials accorded due process, observed the essential requirements of law, and made the final action under review based upon competent substantial evidence.

e.                     Decision. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Board shall render its decision by resolution, which shall be reduced to writing and a copy provided to the appellant and the applicant, if the appellant is not the applicant. When an application is denied, the County shall give written notice to the applicant. The notice shall include a citation to the applicable portions of the ordinance, rule, statute or other legal authorities for the denial.

 

Pursuant to the Board’s Agenda Policy and Procedures Manual, Quasi-Judicial appeals shall be conducted as follows:

 

Quasi-Judicial Appeal Procedures:

1.                     Item Introduction by Chairman

2.                     Ex parte disclosures by the Board of County Commissioners

3.                     Summary introduction of appeal by Staff

4.                     Appellant presentation, by appellant, representative or counsel - LIMITED TO MAXIMUM OF 20 MINUTES

5.                     Questions by the Board of County Commissioners

6.                     Staff presentation - LIMITED TO MAXIMUM OF 20 MINUTES

7.                     Questions by the Board of County Commissioners

8.                     Board of County Commissioners deliberation/decision

As set forth in Section 10.12.E., consideration of the appeal is limited in terms of who may participate and in terms of what may be presented and considered. Only the appellants or their representative(s), the County through its representative(s), and the applicant or its representative(s) should be allowed to address the Board. This type of appellate proceeding does not include an opportunity for public comment.

 

All of the participants must limit their representation to only the facts and evidence which were already established in the record. In this matter, the record consists of the following:

 

1.                     Notice of appeal including Building permit No. BLD2025080317

2.                     May 14, 2026, Notice of Appeal filed by Cory Beaton, including exhibits

3.                     June 30, 2026, Administrative review determination

 

Because this type of proceeding is based on the facts and evidence which have already been established and no new information or evidence should be considered, it would not be necessary to swear in the participants.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.12.E.3.d, the standards for review by the Board are:

 

1.                     Whether the County Administrator accorded procedural due process,

2.                     Whether the County Administrator adhered to the essential requirements of law, and

3.                     Whether the final action by the County Administrator was based upon competent substantial evidence.

 

Determining whether a decision is based upon competent substantial evidence means that the Board must review the record and decide whether there was sufficient evidence to support the final decision, but without any concern for whether there also might have been evidence that would have supported a contrary conclusion and without substituting the Board’s judgement to weigh conflicting evidence or for who had the better evidence.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.12.E.3.e, at the conclusion of the Board’s deliberations, the Board is required to render its decision by a written resolution stating the decision.

 

LEGAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW:

 

Because this request involves the application of a policy to a specific application and site, it is a quasi-judicial decision. Section 10.12.E., LDR, MCC, requires the Board of County Commissioners to act in an appellant capacity and utilize the quasi-judicial appeal procedure. As always, this quasi-judicial proceeding must be conducted with more formality than a legislative proceeding.

 

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

 

RECOMMENDATION

Move that the Board remand Building Permit No. BLD2025080317 back to staff to review the newly discovered information with Mr. Beaton. 

 

ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS

Move that the Board adopt a resolution approving the decision of the County Administrator to deny the issuance of Building Permit No. BLD2025080317.

 

FISCAL IMPACT:

 

RECOMMENDATION

None

                     

ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS

None

 

DOCUMENT(S) REQUIRING ACTION:

Budget Transfer / Amendment                      Chair Letter                                                               Contract / Agreement

Grant / Application                                          Notice          Ordinance                     Resolution

Other: