Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 04-11-06 Workshop — reading text

f~ I tft-..- 590 So. 2d 488 4] 4I1I( B) Manner of Modifying or Amending 4] 4k] 92 k. Petition or Application. Most Cited District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. Cases GARDENS COUNTRY CLUB, INCORPORATED, Zoning in progress" rule did not prevent country club a Florida from corporation, Appellant, challenging county' s failure to consider club' s v. application for rezoning which was in compliance with PALM BEACH COUNTY, a political subdivision of existing comprehensive plan, even though club had the State of Florida, Appellee. knowledge of pending change in comprehensive plan No. 90- 0247. which would be inconsistent with its proposal. West' s F. S. A. g 163. 3197. Nov. 27, 1991. Clarification Denied Jan. 22, ] 992. 141 Zoning and Planning 414 ~ I92 Country club brought action against county to require 4] 4 Zoning and Planning it to grant club' s application for rezoning and special 41411I Modification or Amendment exception in compliance with existing comprehensive 41411I( B) Manner of Modifying or Amending plan. The Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Stephen 4] 4k 192 k. Petition or Application. A. Rapp, J., ruled for county, and country club appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that Zoning and Planning 414 ~ 533 county' s failure to consider country club' s application was improper, since county failed to pass either 4] 4 Zoning and Planning amendment to comprehensive plan or zon ing ordinance 4141X Variances or Exceptions that would preclude approval of country club' s 4 ] 4IX( B) Proceedings and Determination application. 414k533 k. Application. Most Cited Cases Reversed and remanded. County ordinance directing staff to defer consideration of application for development not consistent with West Headnotes contemplated future comprehensive plan was ineffective either as zoning ordinance or as amendment 11) Zoning and Planning 414 ~ 30 to current comprehensive plan; county was required to consider application for rezoning and special exception 414 Zoning and Planning that was in compliance with existing regulations in light 4] 411 Validity of Zoning Regulations of comprehensive plan then in effect. West's F. S. A. ~ 41411( A) In General 163. 3197. 414k30 k. Comprehensive Plan. Most Cited Cases Comprehensive plan is limitation on government' s otherwise broad zoning powers; zoning laws 488 Edna Caruso of Edna L. Caruso, P .A.,Bruce G. implement comprehensive plan and must be consistent Kaleita, West Palm Beach, and Gerald S. Lesher of with it. West's F. S. A. g ] 63. 0] et seq. Cooney, Ward, Lesher & Damon, West Palm Beach, for appellant. 121 Zoning and Planning 414 ~ 30 Lee Rosenthal ofthe Palm Beach County s Office, Atty.' West Palm Beach, for appellee. 414 Zoning and Planning 41411 Validity of Zoning Regulations 489 OPINION ON REHEARING 4] 4II( A) In General 414k30 k. Comprehensive Plan. Most Cited Cases PER CURIAM. Neither the " fairly debatable" nor the " zoning in We grant the motion for rehearing, vacate the opinion progress" zoning rule is applicable in comprehensive previously filed in this case, and substitute the plan case; zoning and planning have different following. functions. Appellant Gardens Country Club, ( the club), appeals 131 Zoning and Planning 414 ~ I92 from a final judgment of the circuit court upholding the county' s denial of zoning relief. 414 Zoning and Planning 414111 Modification or Amendment The parties have stipulated to the factual background of The trial court entered judgment in favor of the county, this case which includes, inter alia, the following holding, among other things, that based upon Smith v. pertinent facts: City ofClearwater, 383 So.2d 681 ( Fla. 2d DCA 1980), rev. dismissed, 403 So. 2d 407 ( Fla. 1981), equitable On December 14, 1988, the club contracted to purchase relief was unavailable to the club because it had actual 734 acres of land in Palm Beach Gardens which, under knowledge of the county' s intention to revise its 1980 the then- existing 1980 County Comprehensive Land Comprehensive Plan, which would result in limiting the Use Plan, authorized the property to be designated density allowable on the club' s property. Furthennore, either Agricultural ( AR) or Residential Estate ( RE). The the trial court denied the request to invalidate county AR classification pennitted one dwelling unit per five ordinance 89- 10 or the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, and acres and the RE category allowed one dwelling unit it found that the action of the county did not deprive the per two and one- half acres or one unit per two acres in club of all beneficial use of the property. a planned unit developm~nt ( PUD). At the time the purchase agreement was executed, the county had under On appeal the club suggests the trial court erred in consideration a revision of the 1980 Comprehensive ruling that the club' s knowledge of the pending change Plan that would pennit a density on the subject property precluded it from relying on the old or existing plan, of only one unit per twenty acres. The purchase contract which the club contends remained effective until allowed the club to avoid the transaction if the club was August when 1989 the " new" 1989 County unable to obtain approval of satisfactory land use Comprehensive Land Use Plan was actually adopted. restrictions on the property. The club argues that the accepted legal principles of zoning in progress" and the " fairly debatable rule" are The club entered into negotiations with the county in an not applicable in the setting of comprehensive plans but attempt to avoid application of the more severe density are confined to zoning cases. Furthennore, it is argued restrictions to the development but was unsuccessful in that the only ordinance relevant here is ordinance the endeavor. Thus, on February 27, ] 989, the club 89-] 0, on which the county relies. That ordinance, tiled a fonna] application for use of the land as a PUD however, was improperly enacted vis- a- vis a with a density of one unit per two acres as required by modification of the 1980 Comprehensive* 490 Land the ] 980 Comprehensive Plan. Use Plan and, in addition, was enacted long after the club' s application was tiled. The application was reviewed for certification to the county commission, but was found insufficient because The county suggests, to the contrary, that the club' s l)the density and acreage data were omitted, ( 2) the knowledge that the county had under consideration operation agreement for the on- site sewer plant was not various changes to the 1980 Comprehensive Plan acceptable, and ( 3) a road access had to be changed. precludes the equitable and legal relief sought because Those deficiencies were corrected and the application of the " zoning in progress" rationale. It is noteworthy was scheduled to come before the planning commission that the county concedes its ordinance 89- 10 was not a at its April] 7, 1989, meeting. However, the application moratorium ordinance" and that it merely directed that was not certified at that meeting because, in the interim, all applications for residential zoning be reviewed for the county commission, on March 29, 1989, had compliance with the contemplated comprehensive plan. directed its staff not to certify any applications that were not consistent with thedensity requirements of the The club' s amended complaint alleged that, on February incipient 1989 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. That 27, 1989, it tiled an application to use the property as a directive became the subject ofordinance 89- 10 on July PUD with a density of one unit per two acres. These 5, 1989. allegations were admitted by the county in its answer. The record further contains a trial memorandum tiled On May 8, ] 989, the club tiled a complaint against the by the county with the trial court which states that "[ o] n county to require it to grant the club' s application for Apri] 17, ] 989, the defendant' s [ the club] application use of the property in accordance with the 1980 for rezoning and special exception was in compliance Comprehensive Plan, to hold the county estopped from with existing Emphasis( added). In view regulations." enforcing county ordinance 89- 10 enacted subsequent of this memo in the record, it seems to us that the to the club' s application, and for damages for " taking" critical issue is the authority of the county to refuse to the club' s property. allow the club to develop its property in confonnity with a density provided by the existing 1980 PAGE 2 Comprehensive Plan and to require the club to meet the Section 163.3