Vertex Dev. Llc v. Manatee County
| Decision Date | 03 January 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 8:09–CV–2645–T–17TBM. |
| Citation | 761 F.Supp.2d 1348 |
| Parties | VERTEX DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff,v.MANATEE COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Mary D. Solik, Law Offices of John L. Di Masi, PA, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff.Robert M. Eschenfelder, Manatee County Attorney's Office, Bradenton, FL, for Defendant.
ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS
This cause is before this Court on:
Dkt. 13 Notice—Official Record, Hearing Video, Index
Dkt. 17 Notice—Hearing Transcript
Dkt. 20 Motion for Summary Judgment (Manatee County)
Dkt. 21 Motion for Summary Judgment (Vertex)
Dkt. 26 Response
Dkt. 27 Response
The Complaint in this case includes Count I, in which Plaintiff Vertex Development, LLC (“Vertex”) seeks a declaratory judgment under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 332, and Count II, in which Plaintiff Vertex seeks a mandatory injunction under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 332.
Plaintiff Vertex and Defendant Manatee County have filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Summary judgment should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
The plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
The appropriate substantive law will guide the determination of which facts are material and which facts are ... irrelevant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). All reasonable doubts about the facts and all justifiable inferences are resolved in favor of the non-movant. See Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir.1993). A dispute is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.” See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. But, “[i]f the evidence is merely colorable ... or is not significantly probative ... summary judgment may be granted.” Id. at 249–50, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
1. Plaintiff Vertex Development, LLC is a Delaware corporation whose principal place of business is in Tampa, Florida. Plaintiff Vertex is in the business of providing service to various licensed wireless telecommunication providers by locating, leasing, zoning, constructing, and owning personal wireless service facilities.
2. Defendant Manatee County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida.
3. Plaintiff Vertex leased a parcel of land from River Club Golf Course, Inc., on which Plaintiff Vertex proposed to build a cellular telecommunications tower which would accommodate five wireless telecommunication providers. Plaintiff's anchor tenant was T–Mobile South, LLC.
4. River Club Golf Course is part of the larger River Club development. River Club Golf Course and Club House is owned and operated independently from the River Club Homeowner's Association. River Club is zoned Planned Development–Residential, and has a Res–1 Future Land Use Designation.
5. River Club Golf Course is a focal point of the design of River Club.
6. The Board of County Commissioners approved a Final Planned Development Plan for River Club Golf Course on December 17, 1987. (Dkt. 13, MC0381–MC0393).
7. On September 11, 1988, Manatee Joint Venture and River Club Golf Course, Inc. filed an Application for Development Approval of a Development of Regional Impact with the Manatee County Board of County Commissioners, which approved the Application on November 30, 1989 (Resolution R–89–243, Dkt. 13, MC0606–MC652). R–89–243 incorporated a Master Development Plan which provided for continuous development in subphases, in accordance with the subphase schedule incorporated therein by reference.
8. Manatee County adopted its Comprehensive Plan on May 11, 1989 (Manatee County Ordinance 89.01), pursuant to Ch. 163, Fla. Stat. The Manatee County Comprehensive Plan contains the long range policy structure for Manatee County. The purpose of the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan is to protect the public good for the long-term future of Manatee County. The Comprehensive Plan contains goals, objectives and policies on land use, transportation, environmental protection, coastal protection, affordable housing, utility services and historic preservation.
9. Manatee County adopted its Land Development Code in 1990, pursuant to Sec. 163.3202, Fla. Stat , et seq. (Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act), the general powers in Ch. 125, Fla. Stat., and the Florida Constitution. The purpose of the Land Development Code is to implement the Comprehensive Plan of Manatee County by establishing regulations, procedures and standards for review and approval of all development and use of land in the unincorporated portions of Manatee County, and further to foster and preserve public health, safety, comfort and welfare in the unincorporated portions of Manatee County. Chapter 5 of the Land Development Code establishes development review procedures. Sec. 508 addresses site plans. Chapter 6 establishes zoning districts. Sec. 603 addresses planned development districts. Chapter 7 establishes development standards of general applicability. Sec. 704 addresses conditional use criteria. The Court takes judicial notice of the provisions of the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan and Manatee County Land Development Code.
Sec. 508, Land Development Code, provides:
508.1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of site plan review is to ensure that development is carried out in compliance with this Code and the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, a site plan describing and portraying both existing and proposed conditions of the development is required in order that the approving body or official can make an informed decision.
508.2. Applicability. Pursuant to this Code, in certain circumstances a site plan may be required as part of a submitted application for development approval, or may, where authorized by this Code, be considered and approved as a separate step in the development process. An applicant has the option of proceeding directly to preliminary site plan approval without first obtaining approval of a General Development Plan. An applicant may be required to proceed directly to preliminary site plan approval where the Board determines a General Development Plan will not provide adequate detail to assure compliance with this Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
....
508.6. Factors for Reviewing Proposed Site Plans. In deciding whether to recommend for approval, or approve, a proposed site plan, the Planning Commission, Board or Planning Director, as the case may be, shall consider whether the proposed site plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and this Code. In determining whether such site plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and this Code, the Planning Commission, Board and the Planning Director shall consider the following factors:
508.6.1. Physical Characteristics of the Site; Relation to Surrounding Property....
....
508.6.4. Compatibility....
....
508.6.6. Design Quality....
508.6.7. Relationship to Adjacent Property....
....
508.6.11. Natural and Historic Features....
....
508.6.13. Height....
....
Sec. 603.1, Land Development Code, provides:
603.1. Purpose. Planned development districts are intended to be established where a proposed project warrants greater flexibility than a standard district provides; when the Comprehensive Plan requires a planned development review process; or when the ability to attach conditions to a site plan is warranted.
Planned development may be used as a vehicle to permit developments when the innovative use of buffering and modern design techniques mitigate the external impacts of development and create a helpful physical environment. Through the utilization of a planned district, the Board may allow mixed dwelling types and/or housing densities; provide for the safe, efficient, convenient, harmonious groupings of structures, uses, facilities, and support uses; for appropriate relationships of space, inside and outside buildings, for intended uses; for preservation of desirable natural features; and minimum disturbance of natural topography.
Within Planned Development Districts, regulations adapted to such unified planning and development are intended to accomplish the purposes of zoning and other applicable regulations to an equivalent or higher degree than where such regulations are intended to control unscheduled development on individual lots; to promote economical and efficient land use; improve levels of amenities for harmonious, creative design, and a better environment.
In view of the substantial public advantage of planned development, it is the intent of these regulations to promote and encourage development in this form, where appropriate, in location and character.
603.2. Planned Development, Defined.
For purposes of this Code, a planned development is:
1. Land to be planned as a whole;
2. Built in a single development operation or a definitively programmed series of development operations;
3. To include principal and accessory structures and uses substantially related to the character and purposes of the district;
4. Built according to plans, which include not only streets, utilities, lots, building locations, and the like; but also, site plans for all buildings intended to be located, constructed, used and related to each other;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cellular S. Real Estate, Inc. v. City of Mobile
...values and the site's location in an area zoned residential were enough to support the denial); Vertex Dev., LLC v. Manatee Cnty., 761 F. Supp. 2d 1348, 1370 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (deciding that "[t]he photo simulation, residents' testimony, property value evidence, and testimony concerning alte......
-
Vertex Dev. v. Pinellas Cnty.
...shadows from the tower would obstruct his view of the sunset. (Id. at 33:20-34:2). This case is thus dissimilar from Wireless Towers and Manatee County, where the local governing considered photo simulations demonstrating the extent of a proposed tower's visibility. See Wireless Towers, 712......