development review committee if they feel that the required dedication is not roughly proportional to the impacts of their proposed development. The burden lies with the landowner to prove entitlement to relief. The case involved a proposal to develop an 83,000 square-foot retail shopping center with three commercial spaces on 16.5 acres purchased by Hillcrest in 2001. In 2006, Hillcrest submitted a preliminary site plan seeking a development permit. From 2006 to 2010, Hillcrest engaged in a series of site plan submittals, as Pasco County, and later the Florida Department of Transportation, rejected the site plans and negotiated varying amounts of right of way to be dedicated. Ultimately, the County required Hillcrest to dedicate about a quarter of its property for the potential road widening before it could build the shopping center. Hillcrest dedicated the required land in exchange for development approval but also reserved the right to contest the exaction. In 2010, Hillcrest sued challenging the right of way exaction largely on violation of due process. The federal district court agreed with the substantive due process violation and issued a permanent injunction against ordinance enforcement. On appeal by Pasco County, the Court of Appeals reversed in favor of Pasco County. The appeals court indicated that the plaintiff had included a takings claim in its original complaint, but “settled that and other claims for $4.7 million, leaving only a substantive due process claim and request for attorneys’ fees for appeal.” Despite the favorable ruling, the Court questioned the constitutionality of the County’s action on other grounds (Hillcrest Property, LLP v. Pasco County, 2019 WL 580259 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2019): “… The failure of the substantive due process claim does not mean that the county’s application of its land-use ordinance to the plaintiff was constitutionally permissible. As discussed in Judge Newsom’s concurrence, the plaintiff may very well have had a viable claim under the Takings Clause. “ In sum, the Hillscrest case did not substantively change the legal context for corridor management in Florida. Rather, it was largely a caution to government agencies on the need to adhere to constitutional guidelines when implementing exaction requirements. Pembroke Center v. Dept. of Transp., 64 So. 3d 737 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011) This case considered when an agency plan to exercise an easement is ripe in relation to declaratory relief and compensation in an inverse condemnation claim. The case involved Florida DOT and Pembroke Center Shopping Plaza, located along State Road 7 in Broward County. A plat drawing of the Plaza from Broward County depicted a ten-foot thoroughfare dedication and forty-foot easement within the boundaries of the land. The thoroughfare is dedicated to the perpetual use of the public in fee simple. The Plaza’s original site plan also depicted the dedicated thoroughfare right-of-way and road/utility easements. The Florida DOT plan to widen SR7 next to the Plaza included a right-of-way map with the intention of taking the thoroughfare dedication and easement for this purpose. The owner of Pembroke Center claimed that the planned FDOT acquisition of the easement constituted inverse condemnation and requested compensation for the easement. The Circuit Court dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court reversed the dismissal and allowed the trial court to reconsider, stating that “At oral argument, we were advised that there may now be funds available to start the project. Our remand allows the trial court to reconsider whether the inverse condemnation claim is now ripe, and if so, to reinstate that
17
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog