Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 16 The Eleventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. ELEVENTH CIRCUIT (FLORIDA) (05/16/18)—This case ad- dressed the issue of whether a city's encouragement and invitation to the general public to access private beachfront property amounted to an illegal seizure in violation of the property owner's Fourth Amendment rights, and a taking without just compensation in violation of the Flor- ida Constitution. The Background/Facts: The estate of Chester Chmielewski (the "Chmielewskis") owned beachfront property in the Don CeSar Place Subdivision in the City of St. Pete Beach (the "City"). Specifically, the Chmielewskis' home sat adjacent to one of the two blocks of the subdivision —Block M, and the Chmielewskis had title to the beach - front portion of Block M contiguous to their residence and extending across Block M to the mean high water line ("MHWL") of the Gulf of Mexico. The Chmielewskis' fee simple ownership was subject only to: (1) a 1925 plat restriction that allowed Don CeSar Subdivision owners the right to use Block M, including the Chmielewskis' beach parcel, for "beach and bathing purposes"; and (2) Florida law making available for public use the beach area between the water and the MHWL. In 1975, the City acquired the original Don CeSar subdivision developer's residence, known as the Don Vista property. The Don Vista property adjoined Block M, just north of the Chmielewskis' property. From 2003 to 2005, the City renovated the Don Vista property, turning it in to a community center. As part of the renovations, the City cleared a direct public access path from a mini -park across from Block M to the Gulf of Mexico, and posted large signs with the City's emblem stat- ing "Beach Access." The City also provided public parking to facilitate beach access, and published a map showing public access to the Block M beach at the Don Vista Center. While the City was renovating the Don Vista Center, it also zoned and mapped Block M, including the Chmielewskis' beach parcel, as "recreation open space/public park." That zoning designated the property as a public beach for public use (inconsistent with the Chmielewskis' private ownership rights). The Chmielewskis later claimed that following these City renova- tions and actions, large numbers of public beachgoers flocked onto the Chmielewskis' private beach parcel. The Chmielewskis also claimed that the City declined to enforce its trespassing laws against those members of the public trespassing on the Chmielewskis' property. Moreover, the Chmielewskis pointed to the fact that the City actually facilitated public use of the Chmielewskis' beach parcel by, among other things: allowing Block M to be used for weddings, including nuptials on the Chmielewskis' beach parcel; and organizing a large wiffle ball tournament that occurred on Block M, including the Chmielewskis' beach parcel. © 2018 Thomson Reuters 3