Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin June 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 12 The Eleventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. ELEVENTH CIRCUIT (FLORIDA) (05/08/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether a zoning ordinance that prohibited property owners from building a boat dock or accessory pier on their properties violated the property owners' substantive due process rights under the United States and Florida Constitutions. The Background/Facts: In September, the City of Sanibel (the "City") enacted Ordinance 93-18 (the "Ordinance"). The Ordinance amended the City's Land Development Code to prohibit new construction of docks and ac- cessory piers within an area fronting San Carlos Bay (the "Bay Beach Zone"). The stated purpose of the Ordinance was to protect seagrasses that grow on the submerged lands in much of the Bay Beach Zone. A number of individuals and entities came to own property within the Bay Beach Zone (the "Owners") after the Ordinance was enacted. In October 2011, those Owners challenged the Ordinance. They alleged in part that the Ordinance did "not substantially advance any legitimate state interest" and therefore violated the Owners' due process rights under the U.S. and Florida Constitutions. More specifically, because they owned land that bordered the high tide line, the Owners claimed to have riparian rights, including "reason- able docking rights." In their challenge to the Ordinance, they argued that the Ordinance: (1) made no specific finding as to the particular ecological condi- tions of the submerged lands, including whether they even had seagrasses on them; (2) made no allowance for dock technology that would not harm seagrasses; (3) contained no basis for the specific boundaries of the Bay Beach Zone; and (4) prohibited any conditional use or variance. The Owners also complained that the true purpose of the Ordinance was "to serve the aesthetic preferences of certain interest groups and to artificially protect the property values of other property owners who are allowed to build docks." The City asked the district court to dismiss the Owner's federal claims and decline jurisdiction over their state claims. The district court dismissed the Owners' substantive due process claims because it found that riparian rights are premised on state law and therefore are not fundamental rights that can support a substantive due process claim. The Owners appealed, challenging only the dismissal of their federal substantive due process claims. The Owners proposed that there should be a "substantial advancement test" for substantive due process claims based on state -created property rights. They argued that property regulations that do not "substantially advance a legitimate state interest" give rise to constitutional challenges sounding in substantive due process law. DECISION: Judgment of district court affirmed. The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, rejected the Owners' proposal that there should be a "substantial advancement test" for substantive due process claims based on state -created property rights. The court agreed with the district court that because property interests are not created by the Constitution but rather from an independent source such as state law, gener- ally there is no substantive due process protection for state -created property rights (i.e., nonfundamental rights). However, the court also noted that the 2014 Thomson Reuters 3