A recent appellate court ruling is important for any developer or landowner in need of a comprehensive plan amendment or other legislative approval from a local government in Florida.

Florida's Second District Court of Appeal (the "DCA") reversed a $16.5 million judgment in favor of The Richman Group of Florida, Inc. ("Richman") in a recent property rights case. The DCA ruled that the trial court had erred in concluding that Pinellas County (the "County") lacked a rational basis to deny Richman's proposed amendment to the County's comprehensive land use plan.

Procedural Background

In 2012, Richman began its attempt to amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan to change its property designation from Industrial Limited to Residential Medium. The Safety Harbor City Commission and the Pinellas Planning Council approved the amendment. After hearing opposition from local residents, however, the County Planning Authority unanimously voted to deny the amendment, citing a County resolution that identified "the need to reserve industrial parcels for target employers."

After the denial, a hearing was conducted before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). The ALJ found that the resolution relied upon by the County was an improper factor to consider. The ALJ concluded that the proposed amendment to residential was consistent with the relevant state law criteria and recommended that the amendment be approved, noting that the County Planning Authority had the ultimate final decision. Following a public hearing, the County Planning Authority denied the proposed amendment a second time.

Richman then sued the County in state court, alleging violations of equal protection and due process rights under the United States Constitution. Richman argued that the County Planning Authority was "legally required to approve the amendment... once the ALJ found that the amendment was consistent with all relevant criteria." The trial court agreed and entered a $16.5 million judgement in favor of Richman, ruling that the County had no rational basis to deny the amendment. The County appealed to the DCA.

Ruling

The DCA reversed the trial court's decision and concluded that the County Planning Authority did have a rational basis to deny Richman's amendment. The court held that the denial was not arbitrary or capricious because the County Planning Authority's decision was "fairly debatable." Significantly, the court held that the County Planning Authority's consideration of concerns expressed by numerous residents during the public hearings regarding the impact on general welfare, such as harm to the economy, traffic, and safety, were sufficient. Although the County Planning Authority considered these matters, which arguably were not relevant criteria under state law, the DCA reversed the trial court judgment because Richman had asserted federal constitutional claims, (due process and equal protection), not state law claims. A federal constitutional violation requires something more than a violation of state law. Therefore, even if the County Planning Authority's action was contrary to state law, it did not amount to a constitutional violation.

Practical Effects

As a result of this decision, landowners and developers may find it difficult to assert federal constitutional claims based exclusively on the local government's failure to adhere to state law. "Something more" is required to turn a state law land use case into a federal case with Constitutional implications. Landowners now have additional factors to consider when faced with a property rights dilemma - careful evaluation of administrative, state and federal court remedies.

The members of our Land Development, Zoning & Environmental Practice Group have extensive experience in advising, resolving and litigating private property rights disputes, with experience in these matters including appeals before the U.S. Supreme Court. We will continue to monitor how local and state governments respond to this decision.

Please contact Jake Cremer, Alice Huneycutt, John Muratides or Darrin Quam for more information on this issue.

Pinellas County v. The Richman Group of Florida, Inc., No. 2D16-3279, 2017 WL 5759040 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 29, 2017)