Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/2013

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 15 Citation: Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management Dist., 133 S. Ct. 2586, 76 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1649 (2013) The Supreme Court of the United States has appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (FLORIDA) (06/25/ 13)—This case addressed the issues of whether a government's demand for property from a land -use permit applicant must meet the requirement that the government's demand have a nexus and rough proportionality to the effects of the proposed land use even when: (1) the government denies the permit; and/or (2) the government's demand is for money. The Background/Facts: Coy Koontz, Sr. ("Koontz") owned an undeveloped 14.9-acre tract of land in the St. Johns River Management District (the "District") in Florida. In 1994, Koontz decided to develop a 3.7-acre section of the property. Because the portion of property that Koontz proposed to develop was largely classified as wetlands by the state, Koontz was required to comply with Florida's Water Resources Act and Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act (the "Henderson Act"). Under those state laws, Koontz applied to the District for a Management and Storage of Surface Water ("MSSW") permit and a Wetlands Resource Management ("WRM") permit. Consistent with the Henderson Act, the District also required that permit applicants wishing to build on wetlands offset the resulting environmental damage by creating, enhancing, or preserving wetlands elsewhere. Koontz offered to mitigate the environmental effects of his development proposal by deeding to the District a conservation easement on 11 acres —nearly three-quarters of his property. The District rejected Koontz's proposal and infoiined him that it would approve construction only if he: (1) reduced the size of his development to one acre and, among other things, deeded to the District a conservation easement on the resulting larger remainder of his property (a total of 13.9 acres); or (2) hired contractors to make improvements to District -owned wetlands several miles away. Believing the District's demands to be excessive in light of the environmental effects his proposal would have caused, Koontz filed suit under a state law (Fla. Stat. § 373.617(2)) that provides money damages for agency action that is an "unreasonable exercise of the state's police power constituting a taking without just compensation." Koontz alleged that the District's denial of land use permits unless he funded the offsite mitigation projects on public lands amounted to a taking without just compensation. The trial court found the District's actions unlawful because they failed the requirements of Nollan v. California Coastal Com'n, 483 U.S. 825, 107 S. Ct. 3141, 97 L. Ed. 2d 677, 26 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1073, 17 Envtl. L. Rep. 20918 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, ©2013 Thomson Reuters 3