Item J3 J.3
t, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
County of Monroe Mayor Sylvia Murphy,District 5
The Florida Keys l'U � � Mayor Pro Tern Danny Kolhage,District 1
�pw° Michelle Coldiron,District 2
Heather Carruthers,District 3
David Rice,District 4
County Commission Meeting
November 20, 2019
Agenda Item Number: J.3
Agenda Item Summary #6268
BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Land Authority Governing Board
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Charles Pattison (305) 295-5180
9:15 A.M. Land Authority
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a resolution authorizing payment of the judgment in
Thomas F. Collins et al., and Donald Davis vs. Monroe County vs. State of Florida.
ITEM BACKGROUND: Staff has prepared this resolution at the recommendation of and in
consultation with the County Attorney. The resolution authorizes the Land Authority to pay the
judgment on behalf of the defendants and to receive a property interest in the parcel which the court
determined is the subject of a permanent regulatory taking (Lot 38, Doctor's Arm Third Addition
Section B). Once payment has been made, the court order states that title shall pass to Monroe
County and the State of Florida. The subject property is outside the Florida Forever acquisition
boundary and it has not yet been determined whether the State of Florida wishes to receive a
property interest.
The subject property is a 6,000 square foot canal lot on San Remo Drive on the bay side of Big Pine
Key near mile marker 31. The property has a tier designation of Tier 2 — Transition and Sprawl
Area, a zoning designation of Improved Subdivision, and vegetation consisting of exotic and
hammock species. The property qualifies for purchase under the Land Authority Acquisition List
because it is Tier 2. The Land Authority's interest in the property will be acquired and managed as
conservation land.
The Clerk of the Court has calculated the judgment and statutory interest through November 21,
2019 to be $375,714.06. The resolution also authorizes payment of the statutory service charge fee
of$5,643.00 for payment into the registry of the court. The total payment will be $381,357.06.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTION: On October 30, 2019 the Committee voted 510 to approve
the resolution.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: The Land Authority has purchased other conservation
properties in this subdivision through the standard willing seller process.
Packet Pg. 2000
J.3
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
DOCUMENTATION:
MCLAResolution
Lt3 8Aerial
FinalJudgmentCollinsEtA1
FinalJudgmentDavis
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Effective Date:
Expiration Date:
Total Dollar Value of Contract:
Total Cost to County:
Current Year Portion:
Budgeted:
Source of Funds:
CPI:
Indirect Costs:
Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts:
Revenue Producing: If yes, amount:
Grant:
County Match:
Insurance Required:
Additional Details:
REVIEWED BY:
Charles Pattison Completed 11/05/2019 8:56 AM
Kathy Peters Completed 11/05/2019 9:18 AM
Board of County Commissioners Pending 11/20/2019 9:00 AM
Packet Pg. 2001
J.3.a
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MONROE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING
PAYMENT OF THE JUDGMENT IN THOMAS F. COLLINS ET
AL., AND DONALD DAVIS VS. MONROE COUNTY VS. STATE
OF FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, pursuant to s. 380.0666(3)(a), Florida Statutes, the Monroe County Comprehensive
Plan Land Authority is authorized to acquire real property or any interest therein when such
acquisition is necessary or appropriate to satisfy private property rights claims resulting from
limitations imposed by the designation of an area of critical state concern; and
4-
0
WHEREAS, Lot 38, Doctor's Arm Third Addition Section B (PB 6-40) (hereinafter "Subject
Property") is the subject of a private property rights claim in the case of Thomas F. Collins et al., 0
and Donald Davis vs. Monroe County vs. State of Florida (Case No. 04-CA-379-M); and
WHEREAS said litigation resulted in a ruling against the defendants as to a permanent taking of
the Subject Property; and
0
WHEREAS, following a stipulation by the parties as to the fair market value of the Subject
Property, Circuit Judge Mark Jones issued a Final Judgment dated February 15, 2017 entering
a judgment against the defendants of $347,475.53 plus statutory interest from December 31,
2016 until the judgment is satisfied; and
U)
2
WHEREAS, the County Attorney is recommending that the County Commission request the M
Land Authority to pay said judgment on behalf of the defendants and that as consideration the
Land Authority receive title to the Subject Property; and
0
WHEREAS, the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller's Office has calculated the judgment
of $347,475.53 plus statutory interest from December 31, 2016 to November 21, 2019 to be
$375,714.06; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to s. 28.24, Florida Statutes, there is a service charge due to the Clerk of 0
the Circuit Court and Comptroller's Office for receiving money into the registry of the court in the
amount of$5,643.00; and
WHEREAS, the total amount of the judgment, statutory interest, and service charge as of
November21, 2019 is $381,357.06; and
WHEREAS, the Land Authority Advisory Committee considered the County Attorney's
recommendation on October 30, 2019 and voted 5/0 to recommend approval; NOW,
THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND
AUTHORITY:
Section 1. The Land Authority Executive Director is authorized to deposit in the Registry of the
Court the judgment, statutory interest, and service charge in the total amount of $381,357.06 on
Page 1 of 2
Packet Pg. 2002
J.3.a
behalf of the defendants of said case and to receive a property interest in the Subject Property
as consideration for said payment.
Section 2. The Subject Property shall be acquired and managed as conservation land.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Land Authority at a
regular meeting on this day of 12019.
Commissioner Michelle Coldiron _
Commissioner Danny Kolhage —
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy —
Commissioner David Rice _
Chairman Heather Carruthers
- a
(Seal)
ATTEST: MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE E
PLAN LAND AUTHORITY
a
a
0
Charles G. Pattison Heather Carruthers
Executive Director Chairman
Approved as to form and legality: 0
2
M
4-
0
Adele V. Stones, Esquire
0
0
U)
Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 2003
J.3.b
Aerial Photograph of Subject Property
Lot 38, Doctor's Arm Third Addition Section B
Big Pine Key
f
y.d
Q.
CD
I
�N
�L
O
y.+
O �
v �
0 O O
MY Q e 0-
k �y� Q.
CL
CO
•w
ilc
Lid
i
h
Packet Pg. 2004
J.3.c
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 16TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
Doc# 1855815 10/24/2011 3:33PM MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Filed & Recorded in Official Records of MONROE COUNTY DRNNY L, KOLHRGE CASE NO. CA-M-04-379
THOMAS F. COLLINS & PATRICIA COLLINS,
T/E; DONALD DAVIS; AURELIA DEL VALLE &
MARIA DEL VALLE, T/E; HILL FAMILY
INVESTMENTS, INC; RICHARD J. JOHNSON;
ROBERT A. LOMRANCE; ELDA S. MAGRINI;
KEITH P. RADENHAUSEN; GREGORY RIORDAN;
-,
HUBERT TOST & MARILYN TOST, T/E., and n r_
SAMUEL I. BURSTYN, P.A. r C; C3
Plaintiffs, oo CL
C-
MONROE COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the
State of Florida, and the STATE OF FLORIDA,
Defendants, and
The STATE OF FLORIDA, 0
Third-party Defendant.
4-
0
Doc# 10815
Bk# 2539 P0152CL
a
FINAL JUDGMENT DENYING AND GRANTING LIABILITY
THIS CAUSE came before the Court from April 4-8, and April 11-14, 2011, in Key
West, Florida, for a trial by Court on Count Two of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint
by Interlineation and the Court, having considered the evidence presented, the various
pleadings and motions filed in conjunction with the trial, the closing arguments, the
U_
pertinent legal authority, the written proposed orders, the Court file, and being otherwise
fully advised in the premises for determination of whether Defendants Monroe County or
U
the State of Florida, or both, are liable to Plaintiffs-Landowners for regulatory takings of the
subject properties! hereby finds as follows:
1 Plaintiffs Collins, Magrini, and Riordan, were dismissed by this Court prior to trial.
1
Packet Pg. 2005
J.3.c
Doc# 1855815
Bk# 2539 Pg# 753
FINDINGS OF FACT: THE LAW
1. First and foremost, this Court received a mandate from the Third District Court of
Appeals commanding and limiting the trial court to applying the "as applied" doctrine.
Collins, et. al. v. Monroe County, 999 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2008).
2. The genesis of the "as applied" doctrine is found in Penn Central Transp. Co. v.
New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).2
4-
0
3. The last paragraph of Collins dictates the prescribed factual and legal analysis to
be undertaken by this Court. Collins, 999 So. 2d at 717.
CL
4. In its prior ruling, the Court found the "Monroe County BUD Ordinance itself
0
answers the ripeness question." Id. at 715 referencing the "rule of finality" from Williamson
County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985).
FINDINGS OF FACT: THE PROPERTIES 0
1. THE LOMERANCE PROPERTY
0
A. The Lomerance property consists of four (4) unimproved lots purchased on May 13,
CL
CL
1981. When purchased, the lots were zoned Native Area (NA) wetlands.3 His lots are part
of a large platted community consisting of over 500 similarly sized lots. Very little
LO
development is present and no improvements to real property are found on lots not abutting
0
the paved road.
B. What we now know as the Florida Keys emerged from the sea during the current
Sangamon interglacial period. 20,000 years ago the Keys were connected together and the
U-
now separated island chain is the result of nature's global warming of the polar ice caps.4
Z Plaintiffs' counsel, Dr. Matson, artfully argued at trial that everything in the opinion after
Footnote 1 in Collins was orbiter dictum. Id. at 718. His well designed efforts to enshroud
this matter as a per se taking will no doubt be heard again. See Lucas v. South Carolina
Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
3 Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants stipulated that the Court could (and probably should)
visit the subject properties. The Court entered every property but for Radenhasen's. This
property is almost identical to the Johnson A and Davis properties.
4 Credit must be given to Keys historian Jerry Wilkinson for the referenced geological history.
2
Packet Pg. 2006
J.3.c
From his testimony, Mr. Lomerance paid $6,000.00 for the lots because he thought it was a
good deal. While Florida Forever was flush with funds, he was offered $144,000.00 for the
lots. He refused the offer and subsequently went into the BUD process described in the
prior opinion by the appellate court.
C. The site visit revealed an undisturbed wetlands environment.5 Deer droppings were
present as were other indicators of an undisturbed wetland. Access to his property is by
4-
0
traversing a pioneer road.b The pioneer road was overgrown and almost impassable. City
Electric power lines stopped several miles from the property. Running water is, at best, tidal
CL
and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) does not serve the seven (7) miles it takes
L-
to get to this property.
2. THE TOST PROPERTY
A. The Tost property is a large track of land located on Bayside/Gulfside of Summerland 0
0
Key. Four (4) acres abut Niles Channel and four (4) acres are situated on the landward side
4-
0
of Niles Road. Mr. Tost testified at the trial. He purchased the property in 1968 when there
0
were very few land use restrictions. At the time he purchased the property, he could have CL
developed eight (8) single family homes.
LO
B. Niles road dissects the property. Along Niles Road, there are a few developed
0
properties. Three (3) recently constructed waterfront homes are within a mile of the Tost
property. It was obvious that the construction required dredge and fill permits and
M
mangrove mitigation. Culverts were installed to alleviate the potentially stymied water
flow. Docks were built to access open water.
Qod 1855815
Bk# 2539 Pg# 754 E
U
5 The competing experts often differed on what made property wetlands or not. "I shall not
today attempt to further define...., and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing
so. But I know it when I see it..." See Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378, U.S. 184,197 (1964)
(Stewart, J. concurring). Having traipsed through most of the properties at issue, this Court
is fairly confident in its layman's assessments.
6 Pioneer road is a term of art used to describe unpaved roads somewhat permitting access to a
subject property.
3
Packet Pg. 2007
J.3.c
C. The landward side of the Tost property is partially dissected by mosquito ditches.7 It
consists of an upland area that was mostly dry and a lowland area that was mostly wet. Key
Deer droppings were present. Pioneer roads surround the property. Although hardly as
remote as the Lomrance lots, the development potential of the landward portion is specious
at best.$ E
3. THE DA VIS, JOHNSON AND RADENHA USER PROPERTIES
M
4-
0
A. These properties are strikingly similar and will be addressed together. The site visit,
the introduced aerial photos and the testimony revealed the properties are incongruous with
CL
their neighbors. All of these properties are surrounded by improved real estate.
L_
B. These properties are buildable and to suggest otherwise is unreasonable.
4. THE BURSTYN AND DEVALLE PROPERTIES
A. These properties are strikingly similar as well. They are located on Duck Key. 0
B. The site visit and introduced evidence revealed lots highly suitable for single family
homes. To add insult to injury, but for these property owners' failure to apply for building
0
CL
permits, an almost completed stilt home borders the Burstyn property. CL
C. Although water was present on both properties, it was fresh water. Prior to their
Ui
LO
purchase, the DeValle's were placed on notice of possible development issues that might
0
impede but not eliminate their ability to improve the property.
5. THE HILL PROPERTY
A. The Hills are successful fishmongers on Key Largo. The Hill property was purchased
U_
during October of 1984. The original plan was to clear some of the brush to accommodate
U
The Court found Plaintiffs' expert witness Robert Smith eminently qualified on almost all
things that survive without the benefit of air conditioning. His opinions were given great
weight.
8 Plaintiffs' real estate expert compared the Tost property to Shark Key. This was an
unrealistic comparison between two strikingly dissimilar properties. Shark Key is a gated
community of multi-million dollar homes. The Tost property is undisturbed waterfront
wetlands and partially disturbed uplands.
4 Doc# 1855815
Bk# 2539 Pg# 755
Packet Pg. 2008
J.3.c
parking for the retail market and storage of commercial and recreational fishing gear. A
similar usage can be found down the street.
B. The buttonwood and mahogany hammock is dissected by pioneer roads. It is another
platted subdivision with no interior development. This is an insignificant hammock of
improved real estate within the plat on the southern boundary and limited to no development E
on the other boundaries.
4-
0
C. Plaintiffs' attorney directed a Hill family descendant. Mr. Hill testified that they only
wanted to clear a small portion of the land to park cars, store traps and provide space for
CL
boat trailers. Plaintiffs expert suggested the highest and best use of the property would be
for housing.9
D. Had this court the ability to do so, the use requested by Mr. Hill would be granted.
Any impediment to this request is ludicrous.
LO
THE EXPERTS
4-
0
A. Plaintiffs' first expert witness was Don Craig. Mr. Craig's expertise came from his
CL
experience as a planner for public and private entities. His testimony on the changing land CL
use rules and regulations was extremely helpful to the Court.
Ui
LO
Several of Mr. Craig's suggested uses for various properties were rejected by the Court.
6
He opined that the Lomarance property was not a wetland and there was no reason he could
not have built in 1981. Although that may have been true then, the subsequent land use
regulations made acquiring permits extremely arduous to the point of futility.
E
U_
The Court rejected the suggestion that Mr. Tost should build multi-family condominiums.
The Court is unaware of any multi-family homes on Summerland. There may be some, but
U
in the Court's estimation, this use would be inappropriate and would be met with opposition
from a myriad of agencies.
Doc# 1855815
Bk# 2539 Pg# 756
9 This use would be completely incongruous with the existing condition of the eastern boundary.
5
Packet Pg. 2009
J.3.c
The Court completely agreed with Mr. Craig's assessments of the Burstyn, Del Valle,
Johnson, Radenhauser and Davis properties. Had these Plaintiffs sought to build single
family homes prior to the 1996 Comprehensive Use Plan, their applications should have
been approved with little scrutiny.
Depending on the property owners' intentions, post 1996 building applications and E
permits necessitated variances, the ROGO queue or TDR sales. As noted elsewhere, the
M
4-
Johnson, Radenhauser and Davis lots are completely surrounded by improved real estate.
Also, a new single family home is nearly completed in the immediate vicinity of the Burstyn E,
CL
and Del Valle properties.
The requested use of the Hill property was found appropriate by the expert. Of course,
the expert also suggested improved real estate might be its highest valued use.
B. Plaintiffs' second expert witness Estuarine Ecologist Robert Smith. His experience in
wetlands classifications and identification was literally mind blowing. In one of his dozens
4-
0
of environmental endeavors, he worked for Monroe County rising to become the county's
0
first Senior Biologist. CL
CL
On the Lomrance property, Mr. Smith identified threatened and endangered plants. On Zi
Uj
the Tost property, threatened and endangered plants were detected as well. Prior to the 1996 th
Comp. Plan, had Mr. Tost initiated any efforts to develop the entire property by sectioning it
off into larger lots, development might have proceeded.
0)
M
But mitigation is required to obtain a FLDEP fill approval to cover protected wetlands.
The offered forms of mitigation were: (1) minimization of impact on wetlands, (2)
conservation of wetlands, (3) onsite creation of wetlands, or (4) offsite mitigation through E
U
the Conservation Bank of state mitigation programs or dedication of land to the state.
When purchased in 1987 and 1990 respectively, Mr. Smith found no environmental
conditions that would have significantly impacted improving the Burstyn and Del Valle
properties. Duck Key is dredge and fill island. It is a platted mostly improved community
6
Doc# 1855815
Bk# 2539 Pg# 757
Packet Pg. 2010
J.3.c
of single family homes built on and being built on at this time.
When purchased in 1984, an authorized use of the Hill property could have been three (3)
single family homes. Post-1986, lot consolidation would have been required to improve the
real estate. Post-1996 would have required an FLDEP permit and approval due to fill
requirements. FLDEP would then send a copy to the Army Corp of Engineers for E
consideration. Without the approval of Federal and State agencies, Monroe County cannot
M
4-
issue permits for fill. However, the Hills never expressed an interest in improving the entire
property. To this day from the testimony adduced at trial, the property was purchased with
CL
the intent of using a small portion for marine purposes.
The Court could add another ten (10) pages to this order detailing the myriad of agencies
and individuals this witness has worked with and the acronyms brought out at trial would
require an attached glossary. The easier route is to identify the one (1) core component 0
th
which binds all properties discussed during Mr. Smith's testimony. Is the property a Red
M
4-
Flag Wetland or not?io
0
C. Plaintiffs' third expert was mainland real estate appraiser Bob Gallaher. As found CL
CL
below, the only relevant property for discussion is the Davis property on Big Pine. The Zi
Court finds as a matter of fact that Mr. Davis was the sole property owner who had initiated LO
any action to receive the required permits before the challenged land use regulation went
into effect. The Court further finds as a matter of fact that his application was either lost by E
the county or was improperly delayed until after the challenged regulation impacted the
buildability of his land. iL
D. Mr. Gallaher appraised numerous land sales during the relevant period. As a
stipulated to expert witness, his appraisal of between $200,000.00 and $220,000.00 is
10 A Red Flag Wetland is undisturbed habitat preferably suitable for preservation. The
classification did not eliminate the buildability of the property, it did however require the
landowner to initiate and complete various environmental tasks to climb to the top of the
permit ladder. The local lateral necessary chain of events is the ROGO queue.
7
Doc# 1855815
Bk# 2539 Pg# 758
Packet Pg. 2011
J.3.c
accepted by the Court as the very high end of the value of the property prior to the
enactment and enforcement of the challenged regulation. His evaluations referenced
similarly sized and situated properties. Some were valued with building permits and some
were valued without permits.
E. But for Respondents' expert real estate appraiser the Court, at this time, sees little E
need to repeat the testimony of the Plaintiffs and Respondents witnesses.
CU
4-
0
F. Real estate appraiser Trent Marr was presented by the Respondents. The Marr name
is well known in the local real estate industry and his expertise was much appreciated. As
CL
stated above, the only relevant property for possible county paid compensation is the Davis
L_
lot on Big Pine Key.
The Davis lot remains an unimproved, overgrown lot surrounded by single family homes.
As found above, Mr. Davis began the necessary machinations to obtain a building permit
LO
0
only to be stymied by ineptitude. The Court clearly remembers his trial testimony. He said, M
4-
0
"I want an apology and I want someone to go to jail." This Court can do neither.
0
Mr. Marr analyzed the properties under two (2) scenarios. Scenario I assumed the CL
CL
property owner would have to go through the post-1996 regulations and Scenario II assumed
no county regulation. Under Scenario I, the Davis property was valued at $25,000.00. LO
Under Scenario 1I, the Davis property was valued at $110,000.00. The Court accepts
Scenario II as the low end value of the Davis property.
THE LAW
The law was given to this Court by the Third District Court of Appeals. "It remains for
the trial court to determine for each of the properties, what, if any, reduction in beneficial
U
use has been sustained by application of the challenged land use regulation. In determining
to what compensation, if any, the Landowners are entitled, the court must take into
consideration the reasonable investment backed expectations of each Landowner relative to
date of purchase (pre-or post-land use regulation) and the post-BUD resolution events (sale
8
Doc# 1855815
Bk# 2539 Pg# 759
Packet Pg. 2012
J.3.c
of property, grants of development permits, lifting of moratoria, etc.) that, despite of the
BOCC'S resolutions finding complete diminution of value, may have an impact on the type
and level of compensation granted to each." Collins at 716.
The Court has also sought guidance from Shands et. al v. City of Marathon, 999 So. 2d
718, (Fla. 3rd DCA 2008) wherein it was announced "... [i]t remains for the trial court to E
determine whether, given Shands' economic expectation, the City's denial of the BUD
M
4-
application rises to the level of a compensable as-applied taking under state and federal law.
The trial court must determine whether, and what, compensation is to be made under the
CL
circumstances, whether the City must grant TDRs equivalent to the buildable upland
N
property or purchase the property outright."ii
THE RULING
A. Mr. Lomerance is a speculator that lost. There has been no reduction in the beneficial
th
use from the alleged damaging ordinances, statutes and policies as this property had value in
4-
2002 for TDR and ROGO purposes. The rejected Florida Forever offer was the only real
0
money he could have reasonably expected. He backed nothing on this property and to CL
CL
expect compensation by the Defendants is unreasonable. Having invested nothing to further
a reasonable return on his initial investment, he forfeited his rights to complain about the c
alleged offending legislation.12 "If the Landowners did not start development prior to the c0
enactment of these [1986] land regulations, they acted at their own peril in relying on the
absence of zoning ordinances." Collins at 718 quoting Monroe County v. Ambrosse, 866 So.
11
See Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 520 U.S. at 725 at 749-750 (1997) (Scalia,
J. concurring) ("TDRs can serve a commendable purpose in mitigating the economic loss
suffered by an individual whose property use is restricted, and property value diminished,
but not so substantially as to produce a compensable taking. They may also form a proper
part, or indeed the entirety, of the full compensation accorded a landowner when his
property is taken.")
12 The claims of the Tost, Radenhauser, Johnson, Burstyn, Del Valle and Hill property owners
will be similarly rejected. They did nothing to advance their cause. They did not hire a
biologist to challenge the wetland determination. They did not hire an architect to present
plans that could minimize the environmental impact. They did not apply for building
permits. They did not get into the ROGO queue. They did not consider TDRs.
9
Doc# 1855815
Bk# 2539 Pg# 760
Packet Pg. 2013
J.3.c
2d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
B. Mr. Tost's efforts for recompense from the county due to the alleged offending
legislation are denied. When he purchased this land, he could have built a small craft airport
community. One exists not a mile or two away. On Niles road, several mansions have been
raised and the Court assumes those owners went through the proper channels. Mr. Tost E
could have done the same, but he invested nothing. The application of the challenged land
M
4-
use regulation has not diminished the value of this property. Only the landowner should
shoulder the blame for ignoring the signs of the times. The property's total value was not
CL
eliminated due to the alleged offending land use regulations. TDRs and ROGO units
became a secondary market for unbuildable land.
C. Were the Court was empowered to do so, building permits would be issued tomorrow
for the Johnson, Radenhauser, Del Valle, and Burstyn properties. But they must get in line
0
LO
like their neighbors. This Court's analysis of these properties reveals similarly situated
4-
unfortunate landowners who didn't take any action. Had they initiated the process, an "as
applied"taking may have been appropriate. Once again,they invested nothing and to expect
CL
CL
compensation from the county for sitting on their hands is unreasonable. Although these _
properties' values were not completely eliminated by the challenged regulation and had W
ROGO and TDR value in 2002, the highest, best use remains improved real estate in their
respective subdivisions. The landowners must get in the queue as did their neighbors.
D. The Hill properties did not suffer a reduction in beneficial use due to the challenged
land use regulation. As stated at trial, the property was purchased for the sole purpose of
4j
expanding the fish market's parking and storage capacities. This need continues to this day 0
and if given the authority, the Court would grant the Hill family permission to do so.
E. Due to the County's malfeasance or misfeasance, Mr. Davis was unable to obtain a
building permit prior to the offending regulation. From Mr. Marr's testimony, the post-
regulation value is found to be $14,000.00 for ROGO purposes. The pre-regulation value is
10 Doc# 1855815
Bk# 2539 Pg# 761
Packet Pg. 2014
J.3.c
somewhere between $110,000.00 and $210,000.00. The market was very active during
2002 and bargaining requires some give and take. Having been charged with the
responsibility of determining what amount of compensation is due, the Court specifically
finds the timing of the regulation reduced the beneficial use of the Davis property. He
invested time and money and is entitled to a reasonable return. Collins at 714.Therefore, the
Court sets the pre-regulation liability of Monroe County at $175,000.00. 2
M
4-
CONCLUSION
Excepting the Davis property, the Plaintiffs assertions that their properties were taken by
CL
regulation failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a) they have a reasonable
investment backed expectations for developing their properties and b) there remains no
viable use for the subject properties. Defendants showed that a variety of uses remain for
each of the properties, including development, sale as ROGO lots, TDRs and speculative
0
th
sales. However, all Plaintiffs but for Mr. Davis never sought any use, nor did they provide
4-
any evidence of pursuing any potential use at the time of the BUD.
0
WHEREFORE, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged: CL
1. Plaintiff Davis proved that his property was the subject of a regulatory taking by
UJ
Defendants. c
2. The remaining Plaintiffs failed to prove that their properties were the subject of a
regulatory taking by Defendants.
3. That judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Davis against Defendants, Board of
County Commissioners of Monroe County and the State of Florida on the regulatory taking
claim set forth in Count 11 of the Second Amended Complaint by Interlineation. E
U
4. That judgment is entered in favor of Defendants, Board of County Commissioners of
Monroe County and the State of Florida, and against Plaintiffs Lomrance, Tost, Del Valle,
Burnstyn, Johnson, Radenhauser and Hill on the regulatory taking claim set forth in Count 11
of the Second Amended Complaint by Interlineation.
Doc# 1855815
11 Bk# 2539 Pg# 762
Packet Pg. 2015
J.3.c
5. That jurisdiction is reserved for purposes of assessing attorney's fees and costs.
DONE AND ORDERED at Key West, Monroe County, Florida this day of
October, 2011 in Case No.: CA-M-379-04.
e
�TEGANS ATON
RCUIT J DGE
cc: Attached Service List
4-
0
CL
tm
Doc# 1855815
Bk# 2539 Pg# 763
Lh
m
4-
M
M
a
Lh
U-
U
a
12
Packet Pg. 2016
J.3.c
SERVICE LIST
CASE NO.: CA-M-04-379
James S. Mattson, Esq.
P.O. Box 586
Key Largo, FL 33037
Stephen J. Moore, Esq.
4-
Elizabeth A. Moran, Esq.
1100 Main Street, Ste. 2201
City Center Square, Suite 2201
CL
Kansas City, MO 64105-5154
Robert B. Shillinger, Esq.
Doc# 1855815
Derek V. Howard, Esq. Bk# 2539 P # 764
Monroe County Attorney's Office g
P.O. Box 1026
Key West, FL 33041-1026 0
Andrew M. Tobin, Esq.
0
P.O. Box 620
Tavernier, FL 33070
CL
CL
Jonathan A. Glogau, Esq. and
Lisa M. Raleigh, Esq.
Counsel for State of Florida, PL-01
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
U-
U
MONROE COUNTY
OFFICIAL RECORDS
Packet Pg. 2017
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 16TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 04-CA-379-M
THOMAS F. COLLINS et al-, and
DONALD DAVIS,
E
Plaintiffs, A
V& 4-
0
MONROE COUNTY, a Political
Subdivision of(lie State of Florida, E
Defendant,
Vs,
STATE OF FLORIDA, 0
FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF DCANAL D DAVIS
THIS CAUSE came before the court on a bench trial on Ap�ril 4-8, and 0U)
April 11-14, 2011, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Court's October 14, 2011, Final 4-
0
Judgment Denying and Granting Liability, the record, and being fully advised in the 0
premises, the Court makes the fbilowing finding of fact and conclusions of law.
I Plaintiff, Donald Davis owns the following described properly:
9
r-
Lot 38, DOCTOR'S ARM THIRD ADDITION SECTION B, 4)
E
according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 6 at page 40 of
the Public Records of Monroe County, Florida.
:2
2. The October 14, 2011, Final Judgment Denying and Granting Liability found .M
u-
.;j
that Plaintiff" Donald Davis' property on Big Pine Key "was the subject of a regulatory
E
taking by Defendants,"' as alleged in Count 11 of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint by
Interlineatio:n. The date of the regulatory taking was found to be July 17, 2002---the date!of <
the Beneficial Use Determination for the Davis property.
Attachment A
Packet Pg. 2018
3. On August 4, 2016, this court suasponte set the damages trial in this action and
directed the parties to mediation, On August 29, 2016,, the parties entered into a stipulation,
agreeing that the fair market value of the subject property on July 17, 2002, was one
hundred seventy-five thousand dollars(SI'75,000,00) for purposes of calculating damages,.
E
4. On December 20, 2016, this court field a hearing on Davis' Motion to Require A
M
4-
0
Government to File Petition for Eminent Dornain, filed on or about August, 8, 2016., Based
E
on the arguments presented, the Court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiff is entitled to >%
"full compensation" for a permanent taking of his property on July 17, 2002, consisting of
the fair market value on the date of the taking plus simple interest at the statutory interest 0
rate until paid.
It is therefore,ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 0
U)
5. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff DONALD DAVIS and against 4-
0
Defendants MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA and the STATE OF FLORIDA,jointly and 0
CL
severally in the amount of $175,000.010, plus simple statutory interest calculated annually <
froin July 17, 2002, until payment is made, 2
6, The total amount of the Final Judgment as of December 31, 2016 is Three
E
Hundred Forty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Seventy-Five Dollars and 53 cents
:2
($347,475.53), which includes prejudgment interest computed annually from July 17, 2002 u_
until December 31, 2016. Defendants shall also Pay Statutory interest from December 3 1, 0
E
2016, until judgment is satisfied in the amount of twenty-two dollars and Seventy seven
cents ($22.,77) per day. In the event of mathematical errors in calculating simple interest,
the parties shall cooperate with each other to correct such errors.
Page of3 2
Packet Pg. 2019
T Upon payment of just compensation, fifle to the subject Property shall pass to
Monroe County and the State of Florida.
8, The:court, retains jurisdiction to determine any entitlement to costs and attomey's
fees.
C
0
E
°ti
ORDERED and ADJUDGED on this any of A
4-
0
2017, in hamblers in Key West, Florida,
C
0
E
M A ffiz f
W E S 0
Circuit Jud
C
0
cc: Andrew M. Tobin, Esq. U)
toL,—Jn—Iaw22 Li-Dlin
,nail.corn
4-
Derek V. Hoard, Esq, howard-dcrek liNnonroccou 0
w
0
Qqj.t—u&,uc-Jaurie ca�rngnjL)cqoLk;L tyf .1
Jonathan A. Glogau, Esq, j2amlo-gau a)n flor aLcom CL
Q -y idale
chan llki. c)iinsoii,f"),',Iiyl!QbAq!M],,cotaro
C
0
E
CM
:2
U-
4i
C
0
E
Page of3 3
Packet Pg. 2020