Pinecrest v Sheidel

1
Dont bother me now Sailor, were making good
time!
Captain!
Pinecrest Lakes v Karen Shidel 795 So. 2d 163
(Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
2
Background

• Florida Statutes, 163.3194(1)(a).
• After a plan has been adopted, all
  development shall be consistent with such plan.
• Q. Who determines whether a development is
  consistent with the comp plan?

3
Facts . . .

• 1981 Pinecrest Lakes, Inc., bought 500 acres of
  land, which they developed into the 10 phased
  Pinecrest Lakes development.
• 1986 Karen Paul Shidel bought a one-acre lot
  in Phase 1, where they built their home.
• Phase 10 is the Villas at Pinecrest Lakes, which
  was transferred to a separate entity in 1997,
  after the DCA ordered a de novo trial on plan
  consistency.

4
Jensen Beach
Stuart
5
Jensen Beach
6
Welcome to Pinecrest Lakes
7
One of Pinecrest Lakes lakes
8
Facts continued . . .

• Phase 1 was Residential Estate,
• Single family detached homes
• Maximum density of 2 dwelling units per acre
• Phases 2 thru 9 were also single family detached
  homes on large lots.

9
A home in Phase 1
10
Another Phase 1 home
11
The Sheidel home
12
Facts continued . . .

• Phase 1 was Residential Estate,
• Single family detached homes
• Maximum density of 2 dwelling units per acre
• Phases 2 thru 9 were also single family detached
  homes on large lots.
• Phase 10 was designated in the Martin Comp Plan
  for medium density
• Attached buildings
• 21 acres with a maximum of 8 per acre.

13
(No Transcript)
14
1
2
3
4
15
Phase 10 . . .

• Phase 10 had been previously approved by Martin
  County for
• 29 single family detached lots
• 1.4 units per acre
• 30,000 Ft² average sized lots.
• Developer requested approval of
• 136 multi-family units
• 6.5 units per acre
• An average of 6,000 Ft² per home.

16
Phase 10 continued . . .

• The Comp Plan would allow
• Up to 8 units per acre
• On 21 acres
• 168 units allowable
• The1995 action by Martin County for 136 units
  would be consistent with Plans density.
• The 3-2 commission vote rejected the unanimous
  planning commission recommendation for denial
• Staff recommended approval

17
So, whats it all about?

• The Comprehensive Plan requires that
• For structures immediately adjacent, any new
  structures must be
• comparable to and
• compatible with those already built.
• Are . . .
• Two-story apartments, 8 to a building and 6.5 to
  an acre
• comparable to and compatible with
• Single family homes on half-acre plus lots?

18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
Legal action

• 2/1996 Two months after the Countys approval,
  Plaintiffs filed suit alleging the approved
  development was not consistent with the
  comprehensive plan.
• Plaintiffs requested a de novo trial with the
  court determining plan consistency.
• This would make the courts the ultimate decider
  of plan consistency.

22

• County argued that the judicial role was confined
  to appellate review (Snyder)
• in which the countys determination of
  consistency was entitled to deference
• and the court should consider only if there was
  competent substantial evidence supporting the
  Boards action.

23
In Snyder, Court held . . .

• that a landowner seeking to rezone property has
  the burden of proving
• that the proposal is consistent with the
  comprehensive plan and
• complies with all procedural requirements of the
  zoning ordinance.
• and

24

• After the applicant has met its burden
• the burden shifts to the governing board to
  demonstrate
• that maintaining the existing zoning
  classification with respect to the property
  accomplishes a legitimate public purpose.
• A review of THE BOARDS action is by certiorari
  and the standard of review is
• competent substantial evidence.

25

• Pinecrest Lakes begs the question . . .
• Is a challenge by a third party alleging plan
  inconsistency controlled by Snyder
• or
• Should an affected third party be allowed the
  opportunity to present evidence on the allegation
  at a de novo hearing?
• Plaintiffs alleged that applicant had not met its
  burden of proving plan consistency and thus the
  board erred in approving the development order.

26
Lower court 1

• July 19, 1996, Judge Cynthia Angelos
• Dismissed residents suit
• Ruled that the development was consistent with
  countys comprehensive plan.
• Plaintiffs appeal to the 4th DCA
• February 3, 1997, developer proceeds with the
  construction of 5 of the planned 19 buildings.
• October 15, 1997, 4th DCA reverses Angelos
  ruling and returns the case to the circuit court.

27
4th DCA 1

• Plaintiffs, as long as they meet the requirements
  for being affected parties, are entitled to
• present evidence on the allegation of
  non-consistency
• at a de novo hearing.
• See Poulos v Martin County, 700 So.2d 163 (Fla
  4th DCA 1997)

28
Lower court 2

• March 12, 1998, Judge Larry Schack starts a
  non-jury trial on the matter.
• October 27, 1998, Schack rules
• The apartments are in violation of the
  comprehensive plan and
• Scheduled hearings on what to do with the 4
  occupied buildings.
• At January 25, 1999 hearing,
• Plaintiffs demanded removal of the buildings
• Defendants offered to construct a buffer

29

• Evidence introduced
• The removal of the 5 completed and occupied
  buildings would represent a loss of 3.3 million
  to the developer
• The loss in property value to the adjacent Phase
  1 properties would be 300,000.
• 26,000 to Shidel.

30

• July 6, 1999, Judge Schack orders the destruction
  of the apartment buildings.
• October 1999, developer appeals to 4th DCA.
• February 2, 2000, Homeowners assn and developer
  settle for a payment of 400,000.
• Karen Shidel, one of the plaintiffs, does not
  settle and continues the suit.

31
Fourth DCA 2

• September 26, 2001, 4th DCA upholds lower court
  and orders the buildings torn down.
• The Court reasons that the courts must first
  determine the plan consistency of an action
  before a court could issue an injunction against
  enforcement of the action.

32

• If the courts must give deference to local
  governments determination of consistency, then
  there could be no cause of action on the basis of
  plan inconsistency.
• I.e., if a board determines an application is
  consistent with the plan and
• If the courts must give deference to that
  determination, then
• There would be no way to challenge that action on
  the basis of inconsistency.

33
additionally . . .

• Snyder stands for plan implementation being
  quasi-judicial and thus subject to strict
  scrutiny.
• Therefore, affected individuals could challenge
  actions on the basis of plan inconsistency and
  the standard of review would be strict scrutiny.

34
Compatibility

• The way it was laid out . . .

35
Compatibility

• The way it should have been laid out . . .

36

• So adjacent portions of Phase 10 would be
• comparable to and compatible with Phase 1.

37
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
38
Is the remedy too harsh?

• If the 5 buildings are demolished . . .
• Loss to developer 3,300,000
• If the 5 buildings are continued . . .
• Loss to Shidel 26,000
• Loss to all of Phase 1 300,000
• Would it be equitable to impose a loss of 3.3
  million on the developer to protect 300,000 in
  Phase 1 property value?
• Why not simply award Phase 1 property owners
  300,000? which is what they settled for

39
The DCA

• If . . . an injunction is the statutory remedy
  to insure consistency of development . . . It
  does not seem to us that the kind of balancing
  advocated by Pinecrest would further that goal.
• In fact, it would very likely lead to even more
  inconsistent development . . ..
• The statutory rule is that if you build it, and
  in court it later proves inconsistent, it will
  have to come down.

40
Florida Supreme Court

• On May 31, 2002 the petition for review was
  denied.

41
September 5, 2002
42
(No Transcript)
43
(No Transcript)
44
(No Transcript)
45
The rest of the story . . .

• On September 5, 2002, after an 8 year battle,
  the Villas at Pinecrest Lakes were torn down.
• The site is now empty.
• The five buildings containing 40 luxury rental
  apartments were valued at 3,300,000 (buildings
  only).
• No suite was filed against Martin County for
  damages.

46
A continuation of the rest of the story . . .

• The 2002 Florida Legislature amended 163 such
  that local governments are authorized to pass
  ordinances that establish a system of special
  masters that will consider plan consistency
  challenges.
• This consideration will be by certiorari.
• If the local government does not establish a
  special master procedure, plan challenges will be
  heard by a circuit court at a de novo hearing.

47
The Site Today
Shidel Home
48
(No Transcript)