Slipsliding Away: Landowners Continue to Lose Substantive Rights under Local Planning Case Law

This article is about how laws can have unintended consequences. It talks about a court case that added to a confusing body of growth management laws. The court gave more rights to third parties trying to reverse zoning approvals than to landowners trying to reverse zoning denials. The article looks at how these laws have changed over time and the unexpected effects they have had. In 1985, the Florida Legislature created a law that allows people to take legal action to enforce local comprehensive plans when it comes to development permits. These permits include things like building permits, zoning permits, and more. The law was meant to make sure that local government actions for specific parcels of land follow the local plan. However, there have been misunderstandings about what the law actually means, leading to confusion for landowners. Overall, the law was intended to make the development process more predictable and fair, but there have been challenges in interpreting it. The Growth Management Act requires local governments to create plans for how their areas will grow. These plans need to follow state and regional guidelines and cover things like land use, transportation, utilities, conservation, and more. The plans also have to be consistent with the state’s overall plan.

If a development doesn’t go along with the local plan, someone affected can take the local government to court to stop the development. This is the only way to challenge a development’s consistency with the local plan. Before taking legal action against a local government for inconsistent actions, the complaining party must first file a complaint describing the problem and the desired outcome. The local government has 30 days to respond to the complaint, after which the complaining party can take legal action. In Florida, zoning regulations are interpreted in favor of the property owner, and courts must give the words of the law their ordinary meaning. There aren’t many cases that interpret comprehensive plans, and there’s no agreed-upon way to evaluate if something is consistent with a plan. In a case in Florida, the court said that when deciding if something is consistent with the plan, it’s important to look closely at the language of the plan. In this case, the court found that a proposed landfill was consistent with the plan, even though some people said it wasn’t, because the city showed how they would take care of the wetlands. The court said that just because the city says something is consistent with the plan, doesn’t mean you should automatically believe them. You have to look at the language of the plan and see if their reasons make sense. The Fifth District in St. Johns County v. Owings used a similar approach to the First District in B.B. McCormick. They reviewed a landowner’s rezoning application and found that the comprehensive plan could allow for commercial zoning in the area. The court balanced the opinions of the planning and zoning board against the surrounding properties and expert opinions, and decided that the plan would not be violated by allowing the change. The Fifth District approved this approach and interpretation of the comprehensive plan. In the case of Alachua County v. Eagle’s Nest Farms, Inc., the court ruled that a proposed special use permit for a private grass airstrip had to strictly adhere to the county’s plan. The plan aimed to encourage orderly and harmonious land use and to protect land from incompatible uses. The court found that the applicant failed to prove that the airstrip would not harm the intent and purpose of the plan, so the permit was denied. This shows that zoning actions must closely follow the rules set out in the county’s plan. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Parker v. Leon County changed the way growth management law works. It said that only third party intervenors can challenge local decisions on rezoning that they think don’t follow the comprehensive plan. It didn’t decide if the review should be completely new, but other courts have said that it should be. The First District Court of Appeal in Marisol limited the right of applicants to challenge zoning decisions. The court ruled that local government decisions about zoning and comprehensive plan consistency cannot be reexamined by the circuit court. This means that landowners and other affected parties have limited opportunities for judicial review of zoning decisions. When a local government denies a development order, it can have a big impact on other landowners. But the current rules don’t give these landowners the right to appeal the decision. This seems unfair, especially when people who oppose a rezoning action have more rights. The law says that courts should review local government actions to make sure they follow the rules and don’t violate property rights. However, the process for showing that a project is consistent with the plan can be difficult for landowners. We need better procedures to protect everyone’s rights in these situations. Basically, when a zoning hearing takes place, it’s not as formal as a regular court case. There are not as many rules about evidence and procedure. The people applying for a zoning change don’t have as many rights as people in a regular court case. Also, it’s hard for them to prepare because they don’t know what the opposition will say and there are time limits on how long they can talk. It can also be really expensive to hire experts to address all the possible issues that might come up. In the past, most cases involving consistency have been about conflicts between future land use maps and proposed rezonings. Now, opponents of development are starting to use other unclear parts of the plans to challenge projects. The impact of recent court decisions has made it harder for landowners to get approvals for their projects. They have to show that their plans are consistent with every part of the land use plan, while opponents can wait until the last minute to raise issues. And even if a local government approves a project, a court can only overturn the decision if there is no evidence to support it. The writer, who is a lawyer specializing in real estate and land use law, is discussing how local zoning cases have become more complicated and unfair for landowners. They believe that the laws should be changed to make the process more fair for everyone involved. This column was submitted by the Environmental and Land Use Law Section.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/slipsliding-away-landowners-continue-to-lose-substantive-rights-under-local-planning-case-law/