5D08-975 Citrus Co. v. Halls River

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D08-975

Case Date: 03/16/2009

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2009

CITRUS COUNTY, FLORIDA, Appellant, v. HALLS RIVER DEVELOPMENT, INC., Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed March 20, 2009 Non-Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Charles M. Harris, Senior Judge. Michele L. Lieberman, of Law Office of Michele L. Lieberman, Inverness, for Appellant. Frederick T. Reeves, of Frederick T. Reeves, P.A., New Port Richey, and George T. Reeves, of Davis, Schnitker, Reeves & Browning, P.A., Madison, for Appellee. Case No. 5D08-975

ORFINGER, J. Citrus County appeals a non-final order determining that it had "inordinately burdened" real property owned by Halls River Development Inc., as that term is used in the Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act, section 70.001, Florida Statutes (2005). The County contends that the trial court erred in finding that Ordinance 2002-A-10 ("the Ordinance") inordinately burdened Halls River's use of its real property; that Halls River had a reasonable, investment-backed expectation to develop its

property as a multifamily condominium; or that the Ordinance burdened Halls River's existing use or vested right to use the property for a multifamily condominium resort. The County further argues that the trial court erred in holding that Halls River timely asserted its Harris Act claim. For the following reasons, we reverse.1 BACKGROUND Halls River purchased approximately eleven acres of real property located in Citrus County in January 2001 with the intention of building a condominium complex. At issue is the proposed development of that property, and more specifically, the interrelationship between the County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan and its Land Development Code. The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, obligates local governments to adopt comprehensive land use plans to guide and control future land development. Galaxy Fireworks, Inc. v. City of Orlando, 842 So. 2d 160, 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Home Builders & Contractors Ass'n of Brevard, Inc. v. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs, 585 So. 2d 965, 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). By law, each comprehensive plan must be reviewed every seven years in an Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("EAR"). The EAR is intended to assess the progress made in implementing the comprehensive plan. See

Download 5D08-975 Citrus Co. v. Halls River.pdf