Resolution Trust Corp. v. Town of Highland Beach
| Citation | 18 F.3d 1536 |
| Decision Date | 19 April 1994 |
| Docket Number | 92-5097,Nos. 92-4462,s. 92-4462 |
| Parties | RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, as Receiver for Broadview Federal Savings Bank, and Sentinel Communities, Inc., d/b/a Hidden Harbor Development Company, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
Patrice A. Talisman, Sam Daniels, Paul, Landy, Beiley & Harper, P.A., Miami, FL, George P. Roberts, Jr., Roberts & Reynolds, West Palm Beach, FL, Defendant-Appellant in No. 92-4462.
John C. Dotterrer, Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, Palm Beach, FL, Margaret L. Cooper, Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A., W. Palm Beach, FL, Randee S. Schatz, Palm Beach, FL, for plaintiffs-appellees in No. 92-4462.
Sam Daniels, Patrice A. Talisman, Paul, Landy, Beiley & Harper, P.A., Miami, FL John C. Dotterrer, Michael J. Kennedy, Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, Palm Beach, FL, Margaret L. Cooper, Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, for plaintiffs-appellees in No. 92-5097.
George R. Roberts, Sr., Roberts & Reynolds, West Palm Beach, FL, for defendant-appellant in No. 92-5097.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and FRIEDMAN *, Senior Circuit Judge.
In this case, we affirm the district court's grant of injunctive relief and a jury verdict for damages against a municipality that attempted to deny to a residential property developer property interest that vested due to the municipality's earlier activities.
In 1969 and 1970, Paul and Camile Hoffman acquired approximately 24.8 acres of land extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the intracoastal waterway in the town of Highland Beach, Florida (the Town). In 1974, to permit development of the property, the Town Commission (Commission) adopted zoning ordinance 228 approving residential plan unit development (RPUD-II), consisting of 846 units on the Hoffman's property. 1 On July 1, 1975, the Town passed Ordinance 282, which amended ordinance 228 and provided:
2. Any real property zoned or classified as ... RPUD-2 ... at the time of passage of this ordinance shall continue to be so classified for a minimum period of one (1) year from the effective date of the ordinance.
3. Ordinance No. 228 and No. 247 are amended to provide:
A. That the approval of the RPUD's in such ordinance(s) are effective for a period of one (1) year from the effective date of this ordinance, in the event that one or more building permits have been applied for ... within the aforementioned one (1) year period in order to commence construction on one or more buildings of the said RPUD developments, then the aforementioned applicable RPUD shall remain in full force and effect. Provided, however, that in any event building permits shall be applied for all buildings included within the RPUD approval and all such buildings shall be completed within ten (10) years of the effective date of this ordinance.
....
4. The Town of Highland Beach must grant an extension of time period allotted within which application for permit must be made upon application by a property owner if that property owner presents evidence to the town commission that he has incurred delay in the securing of necessary governmental approvals in accordance with the RPUD which the Town granted.
....
B. In any event application(s) for permit(s) from the Town of Highland Beach must be made within the time period allotted in paragraph 3(A) of this ordinance or within sixty days of the receipt of the permit, license, or similar documentary approval from each and every applicable governmental agency, whichever is later....
In January, 1980, the Hoffmans, through Hidden Harbor Associates, formed a joint venture with Sentinel Communities, Inc., and Zaremba Harbor Company to construct the RPUD-II (joint venture). 2 After forming the joint venture, Hidden Harbor redesigned the RPUD, reducing its density from 846 to 620 units, and applied for approval of the new design. On January 17, 1980, Hidden On October 7, 1980, the Town adopted Ordinance 389, approving the redesigned RPUD, renamed as "Hidden Harbor Club." After approving the redesigned RPUD, the Commission met and discussed the completion date of the development at a workshop meeting on October 28, 1980. At the meeting, the Commission interpreted Ordinance 282 as requiring completion of RPUD's within ten years of the issuance of the first building permit and determined that the RPUD expired on August 8, 1990, because it granted the first construction permit on August 8, 1980.
Harbor contracted to purchase 17.5 acres of the RPUD. 3 The Town issued its first construction permits on August 8, 1980
On the advice of the town's attorney, the Commission directed Mayor Lewis Y. Horton to inform the joint venture of the RPUD's completion date, "for the record." In his letter dated October 30, Mayor Horton confirmed the completion date.
As you know, Ordinance No. 389 was approved unanimously on October 7th, 1980, at the Meeting of the Town Commission.
At that Meeting, we discussed the necessity of working out a completion date to conform with requirements set forth in Ordinance No. 282.
Inasmuch as a permit was issued for the start of construction for your project, we feel that the time clock has started. Therefore it is our conclusion that the project under RPUD-2 should be completed by August 8, 1990. [Emphasis in original.]
Mayor Horton sent copies of this letter to the Town manager and the town attorney and made a report of doing so to the Commission at its next meeting. Relying upon this interpretation, which became the Town's official philosophy, the joint venture invested over $8,000,000 to prepare the site and begin construction.
In 1982, a Town Bulletin informed the registered voters that the completion date for the RPUD-II was August 8, 1990. Later, during a Commission workshop on July 5, 1983, the Town reaffirmed the 1990 completion date and assured the joint venture that the building permits could lapse temporarily and be reissued. 4
At its meeting on January 31, 1984, the Commission directed the town attorney to submit a draft of an ordinance explicitly amending Ordinance 282 to reflect the 1990 completion date, which he did in February. During a meeting on March 27, however, the Commission debated the correct completion date of the RPUD. In response to queries from the Commission, the town attorney stated:
I assume, that the letter that they received from the town is in full force and effect or would be relying on that. If we are now reviewing the situation, I think a letter to that effect from the town ought to be sent saying, you know, this whole topic is being renewed ... but, I do think that the property owners have got to be notified that the town is reviewing the whole situation. [Emphasis added.]
Later, when the Commission appeared to reverse itself as to the correct completion date of the RPUD:
Well, certainly if ... the town's position has changed as to the expiration date of the RPUD's and an ordinance is necessary ... I think we ought to get cracking on it. I would anticipate we're going to get lawsuits out of both people anyhow on this thing. Having led them down the primrose path for awhile, they're going to be trying to get some equity out of this thing and if we try to tell them they've got a Because of this conflict, the Commission voted unanimously to refer the question to the Planning Board for a "determination and recommendation," during its May 2, 1984 meeting. 5
year and a half to complete, they're going to be jumping all over the place.
Thereafter, the Planning Board and the Commission held a series of meetings on the RPUD without notifying the joint venture. During these meetings, the town attorney advised the Town of potential legal consequences associated with changing the completion date and suggested that doing so ran afoul of basic principles of equity and fair play. Specifically he warned:
[I]f this goes to court, they're going to argue equitable estoppel and I wouldn't blame them. There were reasons ... [that] people at the time they did them thought they had good reasons for it (sic). People on the boards at the time they did, thought they had good reasons. Okay ... you're time frame is removed. You are a different set of people. You don't necessarily think what they did was right but you ought to go back and see why they did it at the time they did it. And, at the time that action was taken in 1980, they had presented certain evidence which indicated they had, or at least evidence that convinced the commission at the time they had been delayed in getting their permits. And, that's my recollection of how that came about.
Concurring in this assessment, Town Manager Elaine Roberts reminded the Board that the 1990 completion date had been promulgated in accord with the "philosophy" of the Commission when it approved the RPUD in 1980.
Disregarding such concerns, on December 12, 1984, the Planning Board determined that the completion date of the RPUD was July 1, 1985. The Board passed a resolution to this effect, which it sent to the Commission. At the direction of the Commission the town attorney notified the joint venture of the change in the completion date, in a letter dated January 30, 1985.
[T]he question of the RPUD zoning time frame is in controversy at the present time. I am enclosing a copy of the Town of Highland Beach Planning Board memorandum of December 19, 1984, which discusses this issue and gives the opinion memorandum which states as follows: 'The planning board finds no evidence that the build-out date has been extended beyond July, 1985.'
The town attorney attached a copy of the Board's resolution to the letter which further provided:
Ordinance No. 282, adopted July 1, 1975, specified that 'in any event building permits shall be applied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goldrush II v. City of Marietta
...law, regulation, policy, or a mutually explicit understanding a governmental body puts forth...." Resolution Trust Corp. v. Town of Highland Beach, 18 F.3d 1536, 1544 (11th Cir.1994). As stated earlier, state and local law expressly provide that issued liquor licenses expire at the end of t......
-
New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe County
...... the submerged land in question to a private trust for $4,000. . In presenting the ... was stayed pending the final resolution of a second lawsuit. This lawsuit, instituted by ... Village of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corp., 371 So.2d 663, 669 (Fla. 1979). Pursuant to ... 55, 116 L.Ed.2d 32 (1991); City of Pompano Beach v. Yardarm Restaurant, Inc., 641 So.2d 1377, ... Resolution Trust Corp. v. Town of Highland Beach, 18 F.3d 1536, 1547 (11th ......
-
James Emory, Inc. v. Twiggs County, Ga.
...inquiry to be conducted by a court differs according to which of the foregoing claims is under consideration. R.T.C. v. Town of Highland Beach, 18 F.3d 1536, 1546 (11th Cir.1994); Eide, 908 F.2d at 722-23. 1. Fifth Amendment Just Compensation Claims — Counts III and IV In regard to plaintif......
-
Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. v. City of Monterey
...courts have found a taking even where the "taken" property retained significant value. See, e.g., Resolution Trust Corp. v. Town of Highland Beach, 18 F.3d 1536, 1549-50 & n. 9 (11th Cir.), vacated and reh'g en banc granted, 42 F.3d 626 (11th Cir.1994); Yancey v. United States, 915 F.2d 153......
-
Case List
...v. Village of Skokie , 85 Ill. App. 2d 418, 229 N.E.2d 345 (1967) Resolution Trust Corp. v. Town of Highland Beach , 8 Fla. L. Weekly 136, 18 F.3d 1536 (11th Cir. 1994) Resource Defense Fund v. County of Santa Cruz , 184 Cal. Rptr. 371, 133 Cal. App. 3d 800 (1982) Reynolds v. Inland Wetland......
-
Vested Rights
...and vested rights may arise from zoning 886. Siemon et al. , supra note 753, at 15; Resolution Trust Corp. v. Town of Highland Beach, 18 F.3d 1536 (11th Cir. 1994). 887. Board of County Comm’rs of Metro. Dade County v. Lutz, 314 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1975). 888. Jones v. U.S. Steel Credit Corp.,......
-
The ripeness doctrine in Florida land use law.
...J. LAND USE & ENVTL. L. 101, 123-24. (65) Tinnerman, 641 So. 2d at 526 n.3 (quoting Resolution Trust Corp. v. Town of Highland Beach, 18 F.3d 1536, 1546-47 (11th Cir. (66) Marzulla, supra note 62, at 633. (67) Powell, supra note 4, at 258. (68) FLA. STAT. [sections] 70.001(4)(a) (1995).......