Sunshine Key Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Monroe County, 95-1944

• Decision Date: 18 December 1996
• Docket Number: No. 95-1944,95-1944
• Citation: 684 So.2d 876
• Parties: 22 Fla. L. Weekly D10 SUNSHINE KEY ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellant, v. MONROE COUNTY, Florida, etc., Appellee. Third District
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 876

684 So.2d 876

22 Fla. L. Weekly D10

SUNSHINE KEY ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellant, v. MONROE COUNTY, Florida, etc., Appellee.

No. 95-1944.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Third District.

Dec. 18, 1996.

Greenman & Manz and Franklin Greenman, Marathon, for appellant.

Morgan & Brookes and Ralf Brookes, Sarasota; James T. Hendrick, Key West, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J. and NESBITT and FLETCHER, JJ.

NESBITT, Judge.

In June 1992, the Director of Planning for Monroe County prepared and forwarded a memorandum to the Monroe County Growth Management staff advising them that actions previously taken by the county were contrary to the Monroe County Code and that certain "park models" were no longer to be allowed in land-use districts designated for recreational vehicles (RV's). After that memorandum, Monroe County Code Enforcement began proceedings against Sunshine Key Associates Limited Partnership, owner and operator of an RV park on Ohio Key in Monroe County. The park timely filed an administrative appeal, arguing the classification of park models as mobile homes was arbitrary and without reason. The Monroe County Planning Commission heard the park's appeal and denied it. The park appealed that decision to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board denied the park's appeal.

The park then filed the instant action in the circuit court for declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages. See State ex rel. Dept. of General Services v. Willis, 344 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1 DCA 1977); (holding "... Administrative Procedure Act does not and cannot displace circuit court jurisdiction to enjoin enforcement of facially unconstitutional agency rules. [citations omitted] That jurisdiction remains unimpaired, a necessary concomitant of the judicial power vested in the circuit courts by Article V, Sections 1 and 5 of the Constitution."); see also Department of Environmental Regulation v. Falls Chase Special Taxing Dist., 424 So.2d 787 (Fla. 1 DCA 1982)(same). Consequently, the constitutional claim of the park was not barred by doctrine of administrative res judicata.

Before the June 1992 memorandum, Monroe County had allowed RV's, including park models, to stay at Sunshine Key's park on a transient basis irrespective of the unit's size or length. With the passage of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations in 1986, the county defined RV in the Monroe County Code, in part, as a vehicle of less than eight feet in width, a definition similar to the Florida Statutes definition of RV in effect at the time of the drafting of the regulations. The State of Florida amended its statutory definition to accommodate RV's of greater width prior to the passage of the regulations, however, the county did not amend its definition. ¹

Also, with the passage of the revised regulations, the county defined mobile homes ² and included in the definition of mobile home "expandable recreational vehicles, known as 'park models' designed and built as a permanent residence, the structure for which is ... in excess of eight (8) feet in width." In March 1992, Sunshine Key submitted building permit applications to provide tie-downs and concrete slabs for five existing park models and in April 1992, applied for three after-the-fact permits for existing electrical hookups for similar park models. It was several months later that the county began its enforcement action against Sunshine Key.

The essence of the park's argument is that to the extent that the RV regulation defines RV's as vehicles not exceeding eight feet in width, the regulation is arbitrary, and without logic or reason. An arbitrary classification is one that has no reasonable or practical basis for its application. See Florida League of Cities, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 603 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (holding "Some reasonable basis" standard is proper basis for deciding whether challenged statute survives rational basis standard under Florida Constitution); see also Florida Citrus Comm'n v. Owens, 239 So.2d 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), cert. denied, 242 So.2d 873 (Fla.1971) (Citrus Commission regulation as applied to citrus grower prohibiting him from marketing his fruit as "Indian River Citrus" held to be arbitrary.)

As both parties conceded at oral argument, the industry is moving towards wider...