Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2015

Home

January 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 2 Zoning Bulletin dressed whether the complaint stated causes of action under which the plaintiffs could obtain relief. The Background/Facts: Since between 1989 and 1991, Frances and Mary Hussey (the "Husseys") owned 979 acres of land (the "Property") in a rural area of Collier County (the "County") known as North Belle Meade. At the time the Husseys purchased the Property, the property was zoned such that mining was an allowed use on the Property. In 2000, the Husseys hired a contractor and "engaged in other activities in pursuit of rock min- ing endeavors" on the Property. However, in July 2002, the County amended its comprehensive plan to establish a Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District ("RFMD"). Lands within the RFMD were given one of three use classifications. The Husseys' Property was designated as "Sending Lands," on which mining was precluded and residential development was limited. In September 2002, the Husseys challenged the Sending Lands designa- tion by filing a petition for formal administration with the Department of Community Affairs. In early 2003, an administrative law judge ("ALJ") is- sued a recommended order concluding that the County's actions were in compliance with state and local law. The Department of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") approved the ALJ's recommended order in July 2003. The Husseys then appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, which af- firmed DOAH's final order on September 15, 2004. Subsequently, in accordance with the governing statute (see Fla. Stat. § 70.001(4)(a)), in July 21, 2004, the Husseys gave the County notice that they would seek compensation under the Bert J. Harris Private Property Rights Act (the "Harris Act"). The Harris Act provides a cause of action for aggrieved property owners. Under the Act, if property owners can demonstrate that a governmental action "inordinately burdens" their prop- erty, they are entitled to some form of compensation. On July 24, 2008, they filed an amended Harris Act notice. On September 11, 2008, they then filed suit in the circuit court asserting a claim under the HalTis Act, as well as a claim for inverse condemnation. The circuit court dismissed both the Husseys' Harris Act Claim and the inverse condemnation claims. The court did not .detail reasons for the dismissals, but court records indicated that they were presumably because the court had determined that both the inverse condemnation claim and the Harris Act only allowed "as applied" challenges (i.e., a challenge that seeks to invalidate a particular application of a statute), while it found that the RFMD amendments were "general" ordinances (not applied to a par- ticular property). The County also challenged both causes of action as be- ing untimely. The Husseys appealed. DECISION: Judgment of circuit court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, held that the 8 © 2015 Thomson Reuters