Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/2006

Home

Page 8 - August 10, 2006 Z.R ,j("" f " rate of return on the investment or that a variance was required for the owner to make a reasonable return. Imlay had submitted an economic analysis that indicated a 1.56 percent return on the investment if the property was developed as a conforming, manufacturing use. The same analysis indicated an 11.41 percent rate of return if the property was developed as a residential building. The court concluded that the economic analy- sis was insufficient because it only made rate-of-return calculations for one permis- sible use group, which was inadequate to satisfy the burden of this requirement. The court vacated the variance and returned the matter to the board for the submission of additional economic analyses relative to rates of return for other permissible use groups. Settlement - County retracts settlement agreement Claims landowner failed to file claim under appropriate state law Citation: Charlotte County Park of Commerce, LLCv. Charlotte County, Court of Appeal of Florida, 2nd. Dist., No. 2D05-1755 (2006) FLORIDA (05/05/06) - Charlotte County Park of Commerce, LLC (Commerce) owned land in Charlotte County that it intended to develop into an industrial park. Disagreements arose between the county and Commerce concerning Commerce's development rights. After Commerce filed a lawsuit, the parties_ settled their disagreements. " (" .." Before it settled the lawsuit, Commerce notified the county formally that it had a potential claim under the Bert Harris Act (Act). The Act was designed to promote a settlement, but it provided a claim when a law or ordinance established by the state inordinately burdened real property without amounting to a taking. The settle- ment agreement between Commerce and the county specifically mentioned theAct. Ten months after the settlement, Cornnierce requested that the county file a joint action with it to obtain court approval of the settlement. The county refused to do so, denying that the earlier claims had been settled. Commerce sued, and the county asked the court to dismiss the claim be- cause Commerce had not specifically filed a lawsuit for relief under the Act. The court ruled in the county's favor, and Commerce appealed. DECISION: Reversed. Commerce had a claim that the parties could have settled whether Com- merce filed suit under the Act or not. The Act recognized the potential resolution of claims made against a govern- mental entity during the pre-suit period without resort to suit by a property owner. The appeals court noted that, between the initial lawsuit that Commerce thought was settled and its ensuing lawsuit after the county refused to recog- nize the settlement, Hurricane Charley had severely damaged property in Char- lotte County. It was apparent that the county was trying to place new zoning restrictions on Commerce's property that conflicted with or were more burden- some than the restrictions contained in the settlement agreement. 96 @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048,