Eide v. Sarasota County

• Decision Date: 08 August 1990
• Docket Number: No. 88-3700,88-3700
• Citation: 908 F.2d 716
• Parties: Elling O. EIDE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SARASOTA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 716

908 F.2d 716

Elling O. EIDE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SARASOTA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 88-3700.

United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 8, 1990.

Richard E. Nelson, Nelson, Hesse, Cyril, Smith, Widman & Herb and James D. Keeney, Sarasota, Fla., for defendant-appellant.

Donald E. Hemke, Carlton Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith, Cutler & Kent, P.A., Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before ANDERSON and COX, Circuit Judges, and SHOOB ^*, District Judge.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion March 8, 1990, 11th Cir., 895 F.2d 1326).

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:

This case is before the panel on petition for rehearing. The previous opinion in this case, published at 895 F.2d 1326 (11th Cir.1990), is withdrawn, and the following opinion is substituted in lieu thereof. The petition for rehearing is denied.

The issue in this case is whether a landowner's contentions that Sarasota County violated his equal protection and due process rights are ripe for decision. ¹ We find that the plaintiff's claims are not ripe.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Florida's land use planning statutes provide for the adoption of comprehensive plans "to control and direct the use and development of property within a county or municipality." Machado v. Musgrove, 519 So.2d 629, 631-32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (citations omitted), adopted en banc, 519 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 529 So.2d 693, 694 (Fla.1988). Once a comprehensive plan for an area is adopted, all development approved by a governmental agency must be consistent with the plan. Fla.Stat. Sec. 163.3194 (Supp.1989).

On June 30, 1981, Sarasota County (the "County") adopted a statutorily mandated comprehensive plan ("Apoxsee") to map out the future development of land in the County. This comprehensive plan identified various areas as "village activity centers," "community centers," and "town centers." Village activity centers are permitted to have approximately 75 acres of commercially zoned land while community centers may have 125 acres in commercial use. ² Town centers are permitted to have variable commercial acreage with no upper limit on the amount of commercially zoned land. Centers where less than 50% of the acreage is commercial are authorized to adopt sector plans "to determine future commercial land-use allocations to support future population growth in the area." R9-110. In order for property included in a sector plan to be rezoned, the proposed rezoning and development plans have to be consistent with both Apoxsee and the sector plan. Mere adoption of a sector plan does not change the zoning of any of the properties involved.

Elling Eide, the appellee, owns two parcels of land--one of approximately fourteen acres (the "14-acre parcel") and the other of approximately nineteen acres (the "19-acre parcel")--which are situated west of U.S. 41 about five miles south of the city limits of the City of Sarasota in Sarasota County. Eide also owns a parcel east of U.S. 41 which he leases to developers who have transformed it into a Kmart shopping center. Apoxsee designates this area as a village activity center around a regional center (the Sarasota Square Mall). Prior to the development of a sector plan for this area, the 19-acre parcel was zoned RSF-2 (residential, single family, 3.5 units/acre), and the 14-acre parcel was zoned RMF-2 (residential, multi-family, 9 units/acre).

In 1984 a property owner in the area requested permission from Sarasota County to prepare a proposed sector plan. Eide discovered that the sector plan included his 14-acre parcel but not his 19-acre parcel. After a County official informed Eide that inclusion in the sector plan was the only way that his properties would ever be considered for commercial zoning in the future, he asked that the sector plan boundary be amended to include his larger property as well. The County amended the sector plan as per his request.

In 1986, because Eide wanted to take advantage of the favorable capital gains tax law, he complained that the landowners who were preparing the sector plan were taking too long; at his request, the County's professional planning staff undertook the completion of the plan. The completed sector plan identified three possible alternatives for future zoning; two of these alternatives recommended some of Eide's property for commercial development, while the third recommended that all of Eide's property remain residential (with the exception of the Kmart parcel). The sector plan's final recommendation adopted a hybrid of two of the alternatives; however, it recommended that Eide's parcels continue to be zoned residential. The sector plan also indicated that an amendment to Apoxsee designating the area as a community or town center would be appropriate in the future; however, the plan suggests that future commercial development should be located east of U.S. 41, and Eide's parcels are located to the west of 41. Sector Plan 84-2, pp. 47-48, 64, 93. On September 16, 1986, the County adopted the sector plan.

Before the completion of the sector plan, Eide filed a petition for the rezoning of his 14-acre parcel. However, a traffic study was required to accompany all rezoning petitions. After the County's planning staff returned the petition to Eide for a required traffic impact analysis, Eide voluntarily withdrew his petition. Eide never requested that his 19-acre parcel be considered for rezoning.

Challenging that the sector plan was unconstitutional as applied to his property, ³ Eide then filed a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 ⁴ and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. ⁵ Sarasota County raised several defenses to Eide's claims, including a challenge to Eide's assertion that the County had made a final decision concerning his property. The district court rejected this ripeness defense. After a jury trial, Eide was awarded $850,000. In addition, the court enjoined the County from using any plan, ordinance, zoning code, or regulation to deny Eide commercial zoning.

We disagree with the district court's determination that this case was ripe for adjudication. Therefore, we reverse the district court's judgment and order that the Section 1983 claims be dismissed as not ripe.

II. ANALYSIS

Before we can analyze the district court's decision, we must first determine what type of claim Eide is making. Eide's reason for bringing suit is that the County did not grant him commercial zoning, and he requests that the County be required to rezone his property commercial. For grievances similar to Eide's, there are four types of challenges which a plaintiff may bring. ⁶ We refer to these claims as just compensation, due process takings, arbitrary and capricious due process, and equal protection claims.

First, a plaintiff can claim that the regulation at issue has taken his or her property without just compensation in contravention of the Fifth Amendment. ⁷ See Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 186-97, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 3116-22, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985) (Fifth Amendment claim not ripe for decision). In order to establish a violation of the just compensation clause, a landowner must demonstrate that his property was "taken," i.e., that the regulation "goes too far," and that there is no provision to award him just compensation. MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. 340, 533-34, 106 S.Ct. 2561, 2565-66, 91 L.Ed.2d 285 (1986); Smithfield Concerned Citizens v. Town of Smithfield, 719 F.Supp. 75, 77 (D.R.I.1989). The remedy for a violation of the Just Compensation Clause is money damages calculated by the value of the property rights taken and the duration of the taking. In order for such a claim to be ripe for adjudication, the landowner must overcome two hurdles: the final decision hurdle and the just compensation hurdle. The landowner must obtain a final decision regarding the application of the zoning ordinance or regulation to his or her property and utilize state procedures which provide for obtaining just compensation. Williamson County, 105 S.Ct. at 3116-20. The final decision requirement includes a requirement that the property owner seek variances from the applicable regulations. Williamson County, 105 S.Ct. at 3117. The reason for the final decision requirement is that one of the factors significant to the adjudication of a just compensation claim is "the economic impact of the challenged action and the extent to which it interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations." Williamson County, 105 S.Ct. at 3119. This impact and interference cannot be ascertained until the local authority has determined the nature and extent of the development that will be permitted. See MacDonald, Sommer & Frates, 106 S.Ct. at 2567. In addition to the final decision requirement, a Fifth Amendment just compensation claim is not ripe until the landowner has pursued the available state procedures to obtain just compensation. Williamson County, 105 S.Ct. at 3120-22.

Second, a plaintiff can bring a claim that the application of the regulation goes so far and destroys the value of his or her property to such an extent that it has the same effect as a taking by eminent domain. Such an application would be an invalid exercise of the police power. We will call this type of claim a "due process takings" claim. The difference between a due process takings claim and a just compensation claim is that, for a due process takings claim, a successful suit would result in an invalidation of the local authority's application of the regulation and, perhaps, actual damages, whereas a just compensation claim is remedied by monetary compensation for the value taken. ⁸ See First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 482 U.S. 304, ...