08-1203 BAY COUNTY and LAGUNA BEACH PROPERTIES, LLC., v. BRENDA HARRISON and WEST BEACHES NEIGHBORHOOD DEFENSE FUND, INC.

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida First District Court » 2009 » 08-1203 BAY COUNTY and LAGUNA BEACH PROPERTIES, LLC., v. BRENDA HARRISON and WEST BEACHES NEIGHBORHOOD DEFENSE FUND, INC.

State: Florida

Court: Florida First District Court

Docket No: 08-1203

Case Date: 05/29/2009

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA BAY COUNTY and LAGUNA BEACH PROPERTIES, LLC, Appellants, v. CASE NO. 1D08-1203 BRENDA HARRISON and WEST BEACHES NEIGHBORHOOD DEFENSE FUND, INC., Appellees. _____________________________/ Opinion filed May 29, 2009. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. Glenn L. Hess, Judge. Dan R. Stengle, Gary K. Hunter, and Jere Earlywine, Tallahassee, for Appellant Laguna Beach Properties, LLC; and Terrell K. Arline, Panama City, for Appellant Bay County. Douglas M. Wyckoff, DeFuniak Springs, for Appellee Brenda Harrison; and Brad E. Kelsky, Plantation, for Appellee West Beaches Neighborhood Defense Fund, Inc. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

KAHN, J. Appellants Bay County and Laguna Beach Properties, LLC, challenge the circuit court's determination that a development order authorizing construction of a large beachfront resort is inconsistent with the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the order.

BACKGROUND Laguna Beach is a community in western Bay County heavily populated with older, single-family homes dating from the 1930s and 1940s, as well as mobile homes and trailers rented or used for transient purposes. The court below received evidence of economic distress and crime in the area. In 1999, Bay County amended the Bay County Comprehensive Plan ("Plan") with a focus on future uses of land in Laguna Beach. Provisions of the Plan, as amended, designated several beachfront areas, including parts of Laguna Beach, as a "seasonal/resort" category of land use. By Plan terms, such category would "provide areas for a functional mix of compatible seasonal/resort land uses where the clientele are predominantly seasonal or temporary visitors and tourists." Such areas consist of "concentrations of accommodations and businesses that are used for non-residential, tourist-oriented purposes." "Allowable uses" of land in the "seasonal/resort" area include: "[b]each houses, cottages, condominiums, townhouses, apartments or other similar multi-family structures, motels, hotels, lodges, restaurants, convenience stores, retreats, and lounges, bars, and other similar uses and public utilities." Under Plan amendments, the county sought to create a tourism-oriented area and chose Plan language reflective of such goal: "Year-round permanent residences should not be located in this area. Lounges and 2

bars are permitted only as an accessory use to multi-family structures, motels, hotels, or restaurants." "No more than fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre" are permitted in a "seasonal/resort" area. The Plan reflects the county's intent to transform Laguna Beach from an older seaside community to a tourist district. Neither the validity nor the wisdom of Bay County's Plan is at issue in the present case. Instead, our focus is upon a proposed resort development project. In 2005, Bay County approved a development proposal submitted by appellant Laguna Beach Properties, LLC, to build "a resort condominium" called "the Mayan." According to the development order ("DO"), the resort would

include "279 living/rental units," built in 22 stories on slightly less than two acres. As a condition of the DO, the county imposed concurrency requirements, among them a bond from the developer to ensure the infrastructure improvements that the Mayan will necessitate. Appellee Brenda Harrison lives near the site of the proposed resort and opposes construction of the Mayan. Harrison and appellee West Beaches

Neighborhood Defense Fund, Inc. ("Fund"), an organization of concerned Laguna Beach homeowners, initially appealed the DO to the Bay County Commission. After that challenge failed, appellees filed the present lawsuit in the circuit court. Their complaint alleged, in relevant part, that the DO authorizing construction of 3

the Mayan was inconsistent with the Plan. declaratory relief.

Appellees sought injunctive and

During a five-day trial, the circuit court received evidence concerning characteristics of the Mayan, resulting traffic, and related matters. A county

planner testified that, because the condominium units in the Mayan would resemble hotel rooms more than residential apartments, the Plan's density restrictions would not apply to the Mayan. At the conclusion of the trial, the circuit court concluded the DO was inconsistent with the Plan. The court

considered that the two-acre resort would include 279 resort condominium units in an area where the Plan authorized only fifteen dwelling units per acre. In the final judgment granting injunctive relief and voiding the DO, the judge reasoned: Two hundred seventy nine "transient" occupied units has [sic] a density nine and one-half times that permitted for resident "occupied" structures. If 16 residential units per acre is [sic] a violation of the purposes and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, 279 transient units on less than two acres surely must also violate them. The decretal portion of the order voided the DO and enjoined the county from reissuing an order "unless the Comprehensive Plan is amended to definitively permit such a development of that property." At oral argument, able counsel for appellees conceded that the trial court's application of the Plan's density restriction

4

to transient units would effectively outlaw almost all hotels in a "seasonal/resort" district such as the Laguna Beach area. ANALYSIS Bay County and Laguna Beach Properties have jointly appealed the order. Although we agree with the circuit court that the Fund had standing to maintain its claims in this case, we reverse the final judgment because the Plan's density restriction for dwelling units does not apply to the resort construction at issue. We conduct our review de novo, as no disputed facts play into our decision. See Dixon v. City of Jacksonville, 774 So. 2d 763, 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). By statute, a local government may not authorize any development that would be inconsistent with the applicable comprehensive plan.

Download 08-1203 BAY COUNTY and LAGUNA BEACH PROPERTIES, LLC., v. BRENDA HARRISON and WES