Little Club Condo. Ass'n v. Martin Cnty.
Decision Date | 21 November 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 4D17-2797,4D17-2797 |
Parties | LITTLE CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, a Florida Not-For-Profit Corporation, North Passage Homeowners' Association, a Florida Not-For-Profit Corporation, and Dynamic Towers Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, Appellants, v. MARTIN COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Kenai Properties, LLC and RG Towers, LLC, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Tim B. Wright of Wright, Ponsoldt & Lozeau Trial Attorneys, L.L.P., Stuart, for appellants.
Jack J. Aiello, Christopher P. Benvenuto, and Brian M. Seymour of Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees Kenai Properties, LLC and RG Towers, LLC.
Sarah W. Woods, County Attorney, and Ruth A. Holmes, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Stuart, for appellee Martin County.
Forst, J.Appellants Little Club Condominium Association, North Passage Homeowners' Association, and Dynamic Towers Inc. appeal the trial court's final summary judgment in favor of Appellees Martin County, RG Towers, LLC, and Kenai Properties, LLC. The trial court found that the Martin County Board of County Commissioners' approval of the construction of a wireless telecommunications (cellular or "cell") tower was consistent with the county's comprehensive growth plan as a matter of law. We affirm.
Background
RG Towers and Kenai Properties sought the county's approval to erect an eighty-foot cell tower, designed to look like a pine tree, within close proximity of residential homes in the communities of Little Club and North Passage. The homeowners' associations, along with Dynamic Towers, a competing cell tower company, intervened in a quasi-judicial hearing. Appellants argued that the cell tower would not be "stealth," as required under the county land development regulations for land with a residential land use designation. The test under the county's land development regulations to determine whether a cell tower is stealth is whether "an average person would be unaware of its presence as a tower." Martin Cty., Fla., Land Dev. Regulations § 4.792. The Martin County Board of County Commissioners ("the Board") approved the tower.
Appellants filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Appellate Division, arguing the Board's "stealth" determination was not based on competent substantial evidence. At the same time, they brought a section 163.3215(3), Florida Statutes (2016) action in the trial court below. There, they argued the development order approving the cell tower was inconsistent with the county's comprehensive growth management plan, specifically Goal 4.4 and Objective 4.4D, which state:
A secondary argument was that the cell tower was not stealth, making it inconsistent with Goal 4.4 and Objective 4.4D.
The trial court entered final summary judgment in Appellees' favor, holding "there can be no genuine issue of any material fact with respect to whether the development order at issue in this case is consistent with Goal 4.4 or Objective 4.4(D) because neither ... are proper standards by which to measure the consistency of the development order with the comprehensive plan." Before rendering final judgment, the trial court noted that Appellants' stealth challenge was confined to certiorari review, and that Appellants had a certiorari petition pending. This appeal followed. The appellate division of the circuit court has since denied the petition for certiorari review.
Analysis
The standard of review of a summary judgment is de novo. Pitcher v. Zappitell , 160 So.3d 145, 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).
Appellants argue summary judgment was erroneous for the following reasons: (1) the trial court erred in finding Goal 4.4 and Objective 4.4D are not proper standards to measure consistency, especially in light of Appellants' expert's testimony that the proposed tower was inconsistent with the two provisions; and (2) the cell tower would not be stealth, making it inconsistent with the two provisions, which incorporate the land development regulations. Appellants' arguments lack merit, and we address each in turn.
Regarding Appellants' expert's testimony that the erection of the cell tower would be inconsistent with Goal 4.4 and Objective 4.4D, it is true that expert testimony may be presented in the form of an opinion "[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue." § 90.702, Fla. Stat. (2016). Cf. Gyongyosi v. Miller , 80 So.3d 1070, 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ( ). However, objective 4.4D merely calls for a policy regarding communications towers—a policy which was in place. It does not prohibit particular tower designs. Thus, specialized knowledge could shed no further light on the matter.
Goal 4.4 is directed to eliminating nonconforming uses. The property is designated as residential in the land uses, which are part of the comprehensive plan. § 163.3194(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016). The land development regulations allow for cell towers in residential areas, provided that additions cannot be made to existing towers; the towers are stealth; and the towers cannot be placed in industrial, agricultural, or commercial land use locations. §§ 4.795.E, 4.796.B.1 Cf. Rehman v. Lake Cty. , 56 So.3d 852, 853-54 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) ( ). Therefore, as a matter of law, the tower was consistent with Goal 4.4, assuming it met the above-noted requirements.
Howell v. Pasco County , 165 So.3d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015), cited by Appellants, is distinguishable. There, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in light of conflicting expert reports. Id. at 14-15. The Second District reasoned that, although the mining operation in question was listed as a permissible use in the county comprehensive plan's appendix, special approval was required for ancillary processing, meaning that the trial court could not find as a matter of law that the mining was per se permissible. Id. at 15. In Howell , specialized knowledge would...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hill v. Vertex Dev., LLC
...Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, Fort Pierce, for appellee St. Lucie County.Per Curiam.Affirmed. See Little Club Condo. Ass'n v. Martin Cnty ., 259 So. 3d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). Damoorgian, Kuntz, JJ., and Fahnestock, Fabienne E., Associate Judge, ...
-
Hill v. Vertex Dev.
... ... , LLC, HARBOUR RIDGE YACHT AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC., and ST. LUCIE COUNTY, a political ... Affirmed ... See Little Club Condo Ass'n v. Martin Cnty., 259 So.3d ... ...
- Telisme v. State