Pres. Palm Beach Political Action Comm. v. Town of Palm Beach

Decision Date04 February 2011
Docket NumberNo. 4D09-4947.,4D09-4947.
Citation50 So.3d 1176
PartiesPRESERVE PALM BEACH POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE and Patrick Henry Flynn, Appellants, v. TOWN OF PALM BEACH, et al., Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Robert J. Hauser of Beasley Hauser Kramer Leonard & Galardi, P.A., West Palm Beach, and John M. Jorgensen of Scott, Harris, Bryan, Barra & Jorgensen, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for appellants.

John C. Randolph and Joanne M. O'Connor of Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee Town of Palm Beach.

John W. Little, III, P.A., and Richard J. Dewitt, III, of Brigham Moore, LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellee Sterling Palm Beach, LLC.

POLEN, J.

Appellants, Preserve Palm Beach Political Action Committee and Patrick HenryFlynn (collectively "Preserve"), appeal the trial court's order granting appellee, Town of Palm Beach's, motion for summary judgment and denying appellants' cross-motion for summary judgment.

In the underlying action, the Town filed a Complaint for Expedited Declaratory Relief seeking a determination of the constitutionality of a Charter amendment proposed by Preserve. The proposed amendment, to be voted on by the citizens of the Town in a February 2010 election, would have required that the Town of Palm Beach Charter be amended to incorporate portions of a 1979 Agreement between the Town of Palm Beach and a developer. The incorporated provisions would prohibit the construction of new buildings in Royal Poinciana Plaza and would require that the Poinciana Theater be used only as a theater of the performing arts and/or visual arts or for lectures or other special events.

The complaint pled two counts of declaratory relief. Count I sought a determination of the constitutionality of the proposed amendment based on whether the amendment conflicted with section 163.3167(12), Florida Statutes, by purporting to use the initiative or referendum process to alter a development order. Count II sought a determination of the constitutionality of the proposed amendment based on whether the amendment was clear and unambiguous as required by section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes.

The parties agreed below that there were no genuine issues of material fact. The trial court was simply asked to determine two issues: (1) whether the 1979 Agreement was a development order, and (2) whether the proposed amendment was unconstitutional on its face.

The 1979 Agreement

The 1979 Agreement between the Town and Poinciana Properties, Ltd. (the developer), was executed in order to satisfy a precondition to the Town's granting of a variance to the developer. At a hearing on the developer's motion for variance, the Town Council granted the motion "subject to [execution of] an agreement, in a form satisfactory to the Town Attorney," which would provide for sixteen specific conditions. A town building official subsequently advised the developer that the building permit would only issue after certain procedures had been followed:

After the town has approved said agreement, and after it has been recorded by the applicant, with original copy returned to the Town for the permanent record, and after the Town has received revised plans for approval which reflect the conditions of the agreement, then the Town Building permit to authorize commencement of construction may subsequently be issued.

The resulting Agreement provided, in part:

WHEREAS, Partnership made an application for variance No. 39-78 with respect to the property known as the Royal Poinciana Plaza on Cocoanut Row in the Town of Palm Beach ...; and
WHEREAS, after public notice and a public hearing on the Partnership application, the Town Council of Palm Beach granted said variance No. 39-78 with modifications of the original plan at its meeting on February 13, 1979 subject to the following conditions; and
WHEREAS, Partnership suggested and volunteered some of said conditions and by this agreement does hereby covenant and agree with TOWN that the conditions hereinafter set forth have become binding obligations on the part of Partnership, and upon its successors and assigns.
NOW, THEREFORE, know all men by these present that in consideration of the premises hereinbefore set forth andfor other good and valuable considerations, the parties do hereby agree as follows:
....
2. Subsequent to the completion of construction and during its ownership of the Royal Poinciana Plaza, the Partnership (and during the ownership of any purchaser) agrees to perform as follows:
....
E. It will continue to lease the space now occupied and used by the "Poinciana Theater" only for use as a theater of the performing and/or visual arts and for lectures or other special events.
Proposed Charter Amendment

Prompted by the threat of demolition of the theater, Preserve sponsored the following ballot title, summary, and charter amendment petition in an effort to incorporate portions of the 1979 Agreement into the Town Charter:

BALLOT TITLE: Alterations of covenants of Royal Poinciana Plaza and Royal Poinciana Playhouse only by Referendum.
BALLOT SUMMARY: Voter approval required for alterations to the covenants set forth in the 1979 Royal Poinciana Plaza Agreement between the Town of Palm Beach and the predecessor of Poinciana Properties, Limited, concerning property known as the Royal Poinciana Plaza.
TEXT OF THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
(1) The Town of Palm Beach Charter [s]hall be amended to incorporate portions of the covenants set forth in the 1979 Agreement between the Town of Palm Beach and the predecessor of Poinciana Properties, Limited concerning property known as the Royal Poinciana Plaza; which do not allow the construction of new buildings in Poinciana Plaza, and require that the Poinciana Theater only be used as a theater of the performing arts and/or visual arts or for lectures or other special events.
(2) That a majority of Voters of the Town of Palm Beach voting in a referendum must approve any alterations to the Royal Poinciana Plaza Agreement.

After Preserve collected the required number of signatures, and the Town was told to put the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Town of Ponce Inlet v. Pacetta, LLC
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 16, 2017
    ...affecting five or fewer "parcels," as that term is defined by section 163.3164(16). See Preserve Palm Beach Political Action Comm. v. Town of Palm Beach , 50 So.3d 1176, 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (" Section 163.3167(12) rightfully protects the small landowner from having to submit her develo......
  • Citizens for Responsible Dev. v. The City of Dania Beach
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 15, 2023
    ...zoning regulations applicable to a property in exchange for public benefits.'" Pres. Palm Beach Pol. Action Comm. v. Town of Palm Beach, 50 So.3d 1176, 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (second alteration in original) (quoting Morgran Co. v. Orange County, 818 So.2d 640, 643 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)). A ......
  • Archstone Palmetto Park, LLC v. Kennedy
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 29, 2014
    ...view, the trial court interpreted the 2012 Amendment as overruling this Court's decision in Preserve Palm Beach Political Action Committee v. Town of Palm Beach, 50 So.3d 1176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), which questioned the efficacy of subjecting development orders to referendum. The appellants c......
  • Hood v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 10, 2011
    ... ... judgment entered in this product liability action in favor of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., Zicam, LLC ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT