Keene v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, etc., Case No. 5D07-3058 (Fla. App. 12/19/2008)
| Decision Date | 19 December 2008 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5D07-3058. |
| Parties | HAROLD D. KEENE, Appellant, v. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ETC., ET AL., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam County, Terry LaRue, Judge.
Michael W. Woodward, of Keyser & Woodward, Interlachen, for Appellant.
No Appearance for Appellee, Zoning Board of Adjustment, etc.
Ronald D. Wilson, Florahome, pro se.
Harold Keene ["Keene"] appeals the final judgment entered in favor of the Board of Adjustment of Putnam County ["Board"] and his neighbors, Ronald and Ossie Wilson ["Wilsons"], in his declaratory judgment action challenging a decision of the Board to grant the Wilsons a Special Use Permit to give riding lessons and to stage, twice annually, a competitive horseback endurance trail ride into the Estoniah Creek State Forest that begins and ends on their 11.25 acre parcel.
The Board granted the permit with the limitations recommended by staff. Keene's contention is that the allowed special use is not within the uses permitted under the County's Land Development Code ["Code"].
The case proceeded to trial in circuit court and, after hearing evidence, the trial court ruled that the permitted uses were within the "Activity-based Recreation" and "Resource Based Recreation" uses identified and described in the Code. The court also concluded that the location, scale and intensity of the activities were compatible with the character and development of the area and the surrounding properties. Given the evidence presented and the categories described in the Code, we find no error and affirm.1
AFFIRMED.
The Putnam County Comprehensive Plan designates Ronald and Ossie Wilson's property as Rural Residential. The activities the Wilsons conduct on their property fall squarely within a category of uses prohibited on Rural Residential property. Although those activities could also conceivably fit into other categories of uses that are permitted on Rural Residential property, the use categories set out by the Comprehensive Plan would have to be given a strained interpretation to achieve that result. The majority holds that activities permitted by certain use categories of the Comprehensive Plan are allowed despite a prohibition on those same activities in another provision of the Plan. I believe this holding is legally incorrect because it creates an irreconcilable conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Moreover, it does not make sense to interpret certain provisions to allow activities that are clearly prohibited by other provisions of the same Plan. I believe that the Comprehensive Plan should be interpreted in a manner that avoids such internal conflicts.
Obviously lacking from the majority opinion is a discussion of the procedural background and the facts of this case, which reveal that the activities conducted on the Wilsons' property clearly fall within a use category of the Comprehensive Plan that is prohibited on the Wilsons' Rural Residential property. Therefore, I will discuss the procedural background and facts in detail, and then analyze the use categories of the Comprehensive Plan applicable to the activities at issue.
We review a final judgment in favor of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of Putnam County and Ronald and Ossie Wilson rendered in the declaratory judgment suit filed by Harold Keene challenging the decision of the Zoning Board to grant the Wilsons a special use permit (SUP). The SUP allowed the Wilsons to conduct a horseback riding school on their land and to stage, twice yearly, a competitive horseback endurance trail ride that begins and ends on their land. The issue we must resolve is whether the trial court erred in determining that the uses were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in upholding the issuance of the SUP.
Keene owns property adjoining the Wilsons' 11.25-acre tract of land. He is, to put it mildly, a disgruntled and annoyed neighbor of the Wilsons. The facts of the case will explain his state of agitation. Of the activities conducted on the Wilsons' property, it is the endurance trail runs that appear to have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for Keene and other neighbors. Although the endurance runs occur only twice a year, they involve as many as 45 riders and at least that many horses (at times in the past, as many as 60 riders participated), up to 30 additional staff workers, and the arrival and parking of large motor homes pulling horse trailers. There is a mobile home on the property that is used for the judges to sleep in, and each participant is permitted to erect a temporary 12 x 12 foot enclosure to stable and board each horse for the weekend. Bullhorn announcements, loud music, and the need for temporary port-o-lets to accommodate the weekend visitors, who sleep in whatever accommodation they have brought, further aggravated Keene and increased his annoyance at the activities.
While workers and perhaps some judges arrive during the week, the event participants generally arrive on Friday to prepare for the Saturday departure from the Wilsons' land. They are released at 30-second intervals to ride from the Wilsons' land to nearby Estoniah Creek State Forest. Entertainment, including hayrides and karaoke is provided during the evenings. While Mrs. Wilson pleads ignorance to alcohol use, other than beer, by the participants, there was testimony of drunken hayrides. On Sunday, the event concludes and participants pack up and leave. The Wilsons and Keene live on a narrow paved road with no shoulder; a curve, referred to by one witness as "Dead Man's Curve," is located between the Wilsons' driveway and Keene's driveway and has a 15-mile-per-hour speed limit. Off-duty deputies were hired to handle the traffic issues at the most recent endurance event.
The Putnam County Comprehensive Plan designates the Wilsons' land as Rural Residential Future Land Use. After it was brought to the attention of zoning enforcement authorities that the Wilsons were conducting a riding school and staging competitive endurance trail rides on their property, the Wilsons applied for a SUP. The staff report prepared for the Zoning Board classified the riding school and endurance event as both "commercial agriculture-related uses" and "rural recreational uses" and recommended approval of the SUP. Specifically, the report recommended that the SUP be issued with a cap of 45 riders in the endurance events, with a two-day, twice per year, limit on those events. Approval of the horseback riding day camp was recommended with a cap of six children at any time. The Zoning Board issued the SUP as recommended.
Keene filed suit for declaratory relief against the Zoning Board requesting a judgment declaring that the SUP was erroneously granted.1 The Wilsons subsequently intervened in the action. As the litigation progressed, the Zoning Board and the Wilsons came to realize that the staff report contained errors. Accordingly, the Zoning Board admitted in its answer that the Comprehensive Plan did not allow "rural recreational" or "agriculture-related commercial use" in an area designated as "Rural Residential." It denied, however, that the uses allowed by the SUP fell into either of those two categories and, instead, asserted that the Wilsons' proposed uses were "limited agricultural uses," which are permitted in the Rural Residential Future Land Use category. Alternatively, the Zoning Board contended that the uses were "resource-based recreational uses" that are permitted by the Comprehensive Plan on land designated as Rural Residential on the Future Land Use map. The Wilsons, agreeing that the staff report had mistakenly referred to the uses as "rural recreational," also contended that the uses were actually either limited agricultural, activity-based recreational, or resource-based recreational uses that may be permitted in the Rural Residential Future Land Use category. Because the trial court did not find that the uses fell within the category of limited agricultural uses, that category will not be discussed any further.
Keene contended that even if the uses were labeled as "activity-based recreational" or "resource-based recreational" uses (even though those categories were not identified in the staff report as the basis for its recommendation that the SUP be approved by the Zoning Board), the uses were still wrongly allowed by the Zoning Board. Keene further argued that the uses fell within the category "commercial: agriculture-related," which are not allowed on land designated as Rural Residential on the Future Land Use map of the Comprehensive Plan, even by issuance of a SUP.
The case eventually made its way to trial. Concluding that the Wilsons' uses were "resource-based or activity-based recreational uses" and thus could properly be allowed on the Wilsons' "Rural Residential" land by issuance of a SUP, the court entered Final Judgment in favor of the Zoning Board and the Wilsons. The final judgment neither reveals the basis for the conclusion that the uses fit within the activity-based and resource-based...
To continue reading
Request your trial