Gardens Country Club, Inc. v. Palm Beach County

• Decision Date: 11 March 1998
• Docket Number: 96-4189,Nos. 96-1165,s. 96-1165
• Citation: 712 So.2d 398
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Parties: 23 Fla. L. Weekly D682 GARDENS COUNTRY CLUB, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.

Page 398

712 So.2d 398

23 Fla. L. Weekly D682

GARDENS COUNTRY CLUB, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 96-1165, 96-4189.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Fourth District.

March 11, 1998.

Rehearing Denied April 16, 1998.

Steven L. Robbins of DeSantis, Gaskill, Smith & Shenkman, P.A., North Palm Beach, and Edna L. Carusa of Carusa, Burlington, Bohn & Compiani, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert P. Banks, Assistant County Attorney, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

WARNER, Judge.

In ruling in favor of the County on Gardens Country Club's ("Gardens") complaint for inverse condemnation and violation of its substantive due process rights, the trial court determined that while the claims were ripe for review, there had been no total temporary taking of the property in question. The trial court also found that Gardens' vested right to develop the property in connection with the then-existing comprehensive plan did not rise to the level of a constitutionally protected property interest and, in the alternative that the County's action in denying development had not been arbitrary or capricious. We affirm on both issues.

This is the second appearance of this case in this court. Gardens Country Club, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 590 So.2d 488 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) ("Gardens I "), provides the essential facts of the dealings between the parties leading up to the present suit:

On December 14, 1988, the club contracted to purchase 734 acres of land in Palm Beach Gardens which, under the then-existing 1980 County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, authorized the property to be designated either Agricultural (AR) or Residential Estate (RE). The AR classification permitted one dwelling unit per five acres and the RE category allowed one dwelling unit per two and one-half or one unit per two acres in a planned unit development (PUD). At the time the purchase agreement was executed, the county had under consideration a revision of the 1980 Comprehensive Plan that would permit a density on the subject property of only one unit per twenty acres. The purchase contract allowed the club to avoid the transaction if the club was unable to obtain approval of satisfactory land use restrictions on the property.

The club entered into negotiations with the county in an attempt to avoid application of the more severe density restrictions to the development but was unsuccessful in the endeavor. Thus, on February 27, 1989, the club filed a formal application for use of the land as a PUD with a density of one unit per two acres as required by the 1980 Comprehensive Plan.

The application was reviewed for certification to the county commission, but was found insufficient because (1) the density and acreage data were omitted, (2) the operation agreement for the on-site sewer plant was not acceptable, and (3) a road access had to be changed. Those deficiencies were corrected and the application was scheduled to come before the planning commission at its April 17, 1989, meeting. However, the application was not certified at that meeting because, in the interim, the county commission, on March 29, 1989, had directed its staff not to certify any applications that were not consistent with the density requirements of the incipient 1989 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. That directive became the subject of ordinance 89-10 on July 5, 1989.

On May 8, 1989, the club filed a complaint against the county to require it to grant the club's application for use of the property in accordance with the 1980 Comprehensive Plan, to hold the county estopped from enforcing county ordinance 89-10 enacted subsequent to the club's application, and for damages for "taking" the club's property.

....

The record further contains a trial memorandum filed by the county with the trial court which states that "[o]n April 17, 1989, the defendant's [the club] application for rezoning and special exception was in compliance with existing regulations." (Emphasis added).

Id. at 489-90. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the County, but this court reversed, holding that ordinance 89-10 conflicted with section 163.3197, Florida Statutes (1989), which provides that an existing comprehensive plan shall continue to have the same force and effect that it had on the date of its adoption until the local government adopts a new revised comprehensive plan, pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act. See id. at 491. Thus, the ordinance was invalid to the extent that it conflicted with the state statute. We remanded for the trial court to reconsider Gardens's application in light of the 1980 Comprehensive Plan. See id.

While the appeal in Gardens I was pending, Gardens sought annexation of its property into the City of Palm Beach Gardens, which annexation occurred on March 21, 1991. The City ultimately approved Gardens's development plan, which included a density of one unit per two acres, the density Gardens had previously requested from the county.

Gardens then filed a supplemental complaint after remand from this court, seeking damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for violation of Gardens's due process rights and for inverse condemnation for a temporary taking of its property. The court granted the County's motion for summary judgment on the section 1983 claim. As to the takings claim (count II), the trial court held a non-jury trial. See Department of Agric. and Consumer Servs. v. Mid-Florida Growers, Inc., 521 So.2d 101 (Fla.1988) (in inverse condemnation suit, trial court decides whether taking has occurred and jury decides what is just compensation). The trial court concluded that Gardens's takings claim was ripe for adjudication, but it found that no taking had occurred because the County's actions, "although unlawful" pursuant to Gardens I, did not deprive Gardens of substantially all economically beneficial use of its property. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court compared the property's before and after fair market values--before the county refused to rezone the property, it had a value of $8,000/acre, and afterwards, a value of $3,000/acre. Since the property was still worth $2.2 million, the court concluded that Gardens had not been deprived of substantially all economically beneficial use of its property. The trial court also found that while Gardens had proved some investment-backed expectations, the reasonableness of these expectations was questionable. Gardens appeals from this final judgment.

The County claims that the case was not ripe for consideration of a takings claim because Gardens did not submit a plan for development under the proposed 1989 Comprehensive Plan. The ripeness doctrine requires, as an essential prerequisite to a regulatory takings claim, a final and authoritative determination of the type and intensity of development legally permitted on the subject property. See MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. 340, 348, 106 S.Ct. 2561, 2566, 91 L.Ed.2d 285 (1986); Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 186, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 3116, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985). However, there is a futility exception to the ripeness doctrine. See Tinnerman v. Palm Beach County, 641 So.2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Glisson v. Alachua County, 558 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). In the instant case, the trial court found that the only application which the County would have considered was an application consistent with the proposed 1989 comprehensive plan which allowed for densities of one unit per twenty acres, instead of the one per five density permitted in the 1980 Comprehensive Plan. Thus, the County's continued refusal to certify an application under the 1980 Comprehensive Plan, together with ordinance 89-10's requirement that all developments comply with the proposed revised comprehensive plan to be certified for approval, shows the futility of applying for any other development plans consistent with the 1980 Comprehensive Plan. Based on the futility exception, we find that the case is ripe for review.

We must first address whether the County's action in enacting ordinance 89-10 and refusing to certify applications inconsistent with the proposed revised comprehensive plan amounted to a due process deprivation or to a "taking." In Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority v. A.G.W.S. Corp., 640 So.2d 54 (Fla.1994), the supreme court explained the difference, quoting from Judge Griffin's concurring opinion in Department of Transportation v. Weisenfeld, 617 So.2d 1071, 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), approved, 640 So.2d 73 (Fla.1994), as follows:

The fifth amendment contains two discrete protections: "No person shall ... be deprived of ... property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." U.S. Const. amend. V. The first of these is commonly called the "police power;" the second is the power of eminent domain. Patrick Wiseman, When the End Justifies the Means: Understanding Takings Jurisprudence In a Legal System With Integrity, 63 St. John's L.Rev. 433, 437 (1988).

Tampa-Hillsborough, 640 So.2d at 57. The supreme court further explained:

Thus, it is evident that while both constitutional theories involve "takings" and "police power," the analysis under due process is different from the analysis under just compensation. Regulations found by the courts to be invalid because they deprive landowners of substantially all use of their property without compensation are not ordinarily struck down as unconstitutional. The government is forced to choose between paying just compensation to keep the regulation in effect or removing the regulation. In situations where state action is declared an improper exercise of police power under due process, the regulation is simply declared unconstitutional. Therefore, a land use regulation can be held...