Item F2
--..-
!:ROWTH MANAGEMENT LITIGATION REPORT
TO:
ROCC; Jim Hendrick: Tim McGarry; Jim Roberts
FROM:
Karen K Cabanas
DATE:
April 18-19, 2001
V llution Rentals
Net!!!!~!!! (F!'d!'r~. CI~It~ Action) - Federal class action case allegin.tt vacation rental ordinance
was prc~at~rdJ er.fcrced and is an unconstitutional tak-lne of Plaintiffs' properties The
... H " _ ._ _-4~~_~ ___..~... 't..-........_....I ...._ ,,_-:1 l"lth. ("'-.r^l"-~ ~",f:.......'I"'l~ +t'\Y" ~"rn"'HI"".' N&Mpnt -n nr-m"'fllf'"
IOUOWlug UIULJUU~ W~lC U.CQJ.U Vii f"".LplU 1* '--ij,VloJoo,l .&UUUVUo.I ......... ..,_.....aua_.J JJ_on__-....~ 1_1... ._':7..... ~r
enforcement. Plaintiffs' motion 101 SUlfIlUdl)' judi;ment on invalid cuactmcnt cl..im, :uld !'.tmrrce
County's motion for sununary Judgment on various counts based on ripentSS (IUU:it :i~ek tak1.tg
claims in state court before federal), res judicata (based on 3:~ ULA's deniai oimotion for stay in
F athbmp) and abstention (federal courts should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over
constitutional claims b~sed purdy on 1l1leged state law violations) ($35,561.25 as of March 31.
~1'\l'\t'\
~V\J . J.
!h!!dte ~ Ded!!r~t()fV action challenmne vacation rental re~lations allew.og that Petitioner relied
J _ _ ..... -
on cxhting zeroing and that vacation rental l.!se of their property ,:houlrl have been grandfathered
uasc;u 'HI uccujJativnallicenscs. ~.10iuOC County h~s fJed a motion to diS!!'lss because Florida law
holds that there is no right i.o Idy on c;x.isl.fug zollirlg and occi.ipatlvnalliccnsc3 do net ccnf~r 2....'1Y
orooertv ri~hts: thev are merely a tax. ($58500 as of March 3 L 2001).
... .. .I _ ..1 ~. '
raid"!!! Claims
N~w J>l)rl I,argo - State "physical occupation" takings claim that had been remanded back to state
cc~rt 'Nhen federa! d"i"!l.S were dic;!!\i~~ed C::!.c;E'! hlt': heen bifurcated to separately decide issues of
liability and daim.gc5. Cro:;:;-motic:is fer .::mr-'n~j judgment have been !'e-~('hedulerl for MI'IY 31 st
1v.ionroe County~ S InoLiun is based uTI stiitute- ofili-rJta.tlons (federal court di$mi$~ed this cl~wn \1.1thout
remand and over four years have passed, barring fiiing of Lhis dailU) ($9,862.00 a5 ufMarch 31,
2001).
Shntlpk - Takings claim for -570 acres of North Key Largo property based on the 1980's Major
Development M.,r~tf}rium. Tri:\l Wll~ held Fehruary 21, 22 and March 13. Post-trial briefs and
prvjJos~d findings h~\!e been filed a."ld ''1!e are nC~1! aw~ft!ng Jt!dg~ C~cja's !1Jliug, If Monroe County
is found iiablt;) i,ile ~und pIlas.; of trial Yr~ be 3\;t to conduct il j~~J trial en da.l!lages - potential'y
reaching $5 to 6 million ($146,385.24 as of March 31,2001).
Tr-~pk L-e~mr~ R~~!'~~tion - Takings claims regarding property on Upper Matecumbe in which
Plii.intUf:.> dci..'n th~j were de!'.ied building p~!!!'its for new congtmctlon Plaintiffs have filed suit
again::;i. I~ifu.l1uradcl and l'v1oi"uoC County since permitting requests bega.'1 prior to L'!corpor~tiondI\t1onroe County wiii iikeiy we IIWiivlt fOf SUliliTIGiy jild~uent since the uw.jcrit-j cfPlcintlif's claims
occurred subsequent to incorporation ($2663.00 as ofMlllCiJ 31, 2(01).
r.~
---.--. - ~~ -~ - --~.._----------
Ph.e~p,,/H~:-din C!:li.,'rr brought 1..11 ft'deral court for due process and inverse condemnation based on
C"U...., r ~.- -- -;.-. ~-- -~_...I:_~~ ..1.nf r_nnlfAtf;.. " I;,," 1"\" l>1!.;nt;fl".,' ~1'nnprtv MonroeCountv has filed
y ..., ,.,11101 -.;t:U..U::U." III ~\J~UJ.U5a ,",1.1",. .I....~.......-..- _& - --- 'V....... .---...----........ r - -. ~- - -.J . - ..
. .,.. of ....,.. _.~1r--:' L"_~'_ ~.... ......... __....__....1.... ~__.o...,l ""I"\.AQ ~"..fnrcem~!!t. flrrtprc;: Rnn
a motton to GlSIDlSS oaseu 011 rt;1.lULLU:l 1C1.Ul.1iC LV jJ1VlI......J ..t'y...... ~~..~ - -- n_ ---~-- ----
because Plaintiffs' sImilar claims are 5tlii pending in stail:: wUIL ($859.00 as on.larch 31, 20tH).
r:..d.n....r _ rb;m frrr riec1aratorv relief and inverse condemnation based on code enforcement
--......--..0......- ---.--- --~ ------.- '""
procccdi..g::. Plci:i.tiff...v~~ found !~ ,.ri0!~tilJn of various corle provision for failure to reconstruct or
d~moli:sh a. It(ul-'vl1fom-~ng 5tr~\;t"~C drrrnaged by hurricane. Under 50~'{ !'u.le;J gaid st,.,.l~tllre could
n t .De .tteo' . ., .'_L_-' ....L_ ",~_._:_l 1l.(__._~7r r.~A;~,..r ","'..'" "nt ",""..".1..,.
o penm ,as n prevluu:lIY t:.oullLCU. 1UI;< ..;l}J"'L..l<Ll .1........". " ............0" H~'~ ..~. ..t'f'-----.
Plaintift~ s apphcatlOn for buiiding permit was denied and not appc.ucd. Munroe County h..;; filed a
motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administratlVe remedies (could have appealed building pernUi
de!,j~ to Phm!11ng COITU!ljsc;inn) and res judicata (cannot re-litigate factual findin~s already made by
C'_^.....^, 1\An,.....AT ~r\r1 ?'U""r ".:Iin,"p"::lJpr.~\
>JfJ,.".""'.u.& "''''&'~'''''A w-a....... .............. -yy----J"-
Si2dS & Billboards
R~p!!bHr Medin/Outdoor Systems - Declaratory action claim filed by billboard owners challengmg
~pplic3.bility of Post-Hurnc!!...'!': Emergency Pfo,rmittine Policy and the billboard valuation schedule
i:;-. --.. - -~ . - - _.J - ___.1 ~.; __r _.._ t..;l.;..:~..... .-......"';.. n+'..n"_....n"f"n.......;no h;nhn;1r"~ n~m~f>l"rt ht-vnnrl ~()O/" of
rUI.:'uc:uu LV \.rUU~ J\.teWQ+"jVU~ Y"VI.,Uv.n,.I,uo &'-t"~ _.a. "'_,U ...~......._..u-....O .....-......--------....-=-.... ~---____.;;iI....:- ~ --J - ~ -
their vaiue. Monroe CounLY is lltt:ki.f1g discovert request:; Hogardi.,g cxi~ting bmbcards:md t.~e \vcrk
than has been done without oermits ($13,87200 as of March 31,2001).
St(\ky ~ 'Plaintiff" have filed two separate appeals of Planning Commission's decisions affirming the
denial cft'...!o afrer-th~-fact bll;lding pewits (1) for reconstruction of porch and deck structures and
(2) for i~-cvn:itj.;cticn of a ncn.;::ccnfo~2-~ sign. D!'\r!sic!! of Ad!!'l!!istr!!tive He~ring~ judge reverse
ihe Pianning CuxIllui:>:>ion' 5 resolutiOii as to the :;igri. ..pp~. Monroe County r~fl filed its A'1~we!
Brief as to the deck appeal ($4,840.00 as of March 3 i, 2001),
Perry'! (K~ L~rgf)) - Declaratory action almost identical to complaint filed by Republic Media &
Outdoor Sy:;te.n3 ch:illengl.'1g Pcst-Hurnca..'1': Emergency P~IT!1itting Policy and it's application to
billbuiilds. Te.il1pOlCU~"y injunctiun has been autcffiutic:!!y di~~clved due to d!srn;ssa! of the l?epu'b!ir
Media appeal ($1345.00 as of March 31,2001).
Oth"r Matten
T~!,:ay~r'" for Electrification of No Name Key - Declaratory, vested rights, and ~1983 claims
ch:illenging Monroe County's policy thJtt installing commercial electric service to No Name Key is
probibit",Q by the 201 C compr::nensive pl~'1. Mediation was he!d March 27th. Proposed settlement
agreemem is on ihis month's BOCC agenda. ($7,650.00 as cf:M:&rcn 31,2001).
C1~y (Big Pine Moratorium) - Complaint filed against Monroe County alleging various claims
(t~!ci~gS7 vested rights, etc.) based on the d~ fllc1;o huilding moratorium on Big Pine due to the traffic
level uf 5~rvi~_ }V1onrcr: County h~~ fiJed it~ ~Tls~.!er a-T!d '\~~J! l;\-,=\y move for Sl_1mm::try judgment
based on faiiul c tv juin illdispensable parties (DCA w"'1d USF\~!S) ;.w~d :.dcpticn of ordi..-n...a.1'!ce adoptir!g
Chapter 163 concurrency requicemeui.:i. An wUli.iy regulations li..-,;" been cc.mplicd with (ROGO
allocations have been granted, however, permits cannot be issued out: iu Chapter 163 CuilCu.7cncy
2
------~--
requii'enlents and Endangered Species Act) AI1Y liability created by tbese regulations should be
borne by the agen"ies ~hiUged with <'iJ..fm;;;ing thase reg-.llations Cross-motions for summary
. d - .. .. . ~ 1 . "f ''''I' "PH' /:n ~~ ~~'I\""^."h '1.1 '7nnl)
JU gment are scheaUleO to DC neara lVlay 1 UU. tJlJ,J........Jv...i> V~ ...,....."'.. -', -~~ "/'
G~:euii BiiJ - Petition fer Certiorari review ofBOCC's decision to deny vested rights application.
Monroe Coumy filt:d ii~ ie~pufAsive pl;;..ding Na hear;.ng has been s~t; ~~.S~ hac: heen transferred to
n" ___._~__ ,.'I'..,.....nn"'..I .' 1,.l . r.ll R _At.~)
lower keys diVISIon. t:t;L.,"'~U'VU as CHVIW.\,;U ,n, ..\IV AJ\.uGeS no. .nc.u...e pncr Ja..eon _ay ",<uer:-,
Am~i"U:oe _ Dedar:tcr-J action c!~1~j!!g vested rights under ~380.05(18) based on tiling of
subdivision pii1ts. Juu~e Payue iS3ued order gr;:nting S'..l!!!..rnary ju.dgment in f,!vQr of Plaintiffs.
Monroe County, DCA, and Isiarnoraua lippca.b:l that order to the ThIrd D:strict Court of Appt:a!s.
The appeUate court granted PlamtIffs' Motion to Dismiss for LiU.;k. of Juri~jction based on the
assertion that it is a non-final order and not appealable at thIs stage of proceedings. The pw tie:! wt:'ie
orMred hy Judge Payne to come up with a permitting and purchase plan. A proposed Statement of
Ccmpliant,;e ,~!!!.s submitted to the ~Qurt by the defendants (including Monroe County). Plaintiffs have
iiut y~ r~;;pGudcd to the Defe!!.d~'!!'5 p!"opased pla.T! ($3h,n7R 7') a!l of March 3 L 2001)
Per~~m~! W!.t~ITrl!rt Intllldry Assoc. - Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief
alleging watercra..4! re~tricticn zones On:!~~'!ce ~e unconstitutional under commerce clause and
supremacy dll.UM;;. The Horida legislature pa~~cd :l.."l :l..T.endment to t.l1e Florida St~t1ltes, which
prohibits any iocai government from w:if.iliu1iui11i.fAg aga1fAst p<:;r3oniil v..at~rcr~ft. Accord;ng!y, the
ordinances passed by Monroe County are renaered invalid a..'lO wll:ululI;;eable by this l<:;glslaticn,
wbich became effective July 1, 2000, Monroe County was granted 8. stay to repeal tne challt:ngc;u
ordinR.nces and did so. Monroe County has now filed a Suggestion of Mootness based on the
cra:na.'1cc repell11ng th~ ch!'lllEmged ordinances. ($22,416.50 as of March 31,2001).
Puy~mi!:: - Complaim for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging commercial ROGO violates
due prvc~s:;. Monroe Cm.mty has filed !m ans~r denyi.1\g said allegations Settlement
negotiations are in process based Gn new ca::r-mercia! ROGO prcvisio!!~ in enactmeTlt process
fud:.:~t:,5a! CC!n!!!!!!lk2!:!!!!!S &. EIf>l:"frnni('s - New complaint challenging resolution imposing
lcmpuriu-; 'iilc.ratmium on prc:;:eS$ of permit !!.pp!i!:!!.tilJ!1s for l"cO!!tmunication towers exceeding
100 feet. Complwut :icek;s de~laratory action, tcm.pcr~] a.'1d penn~'1ent injunctive r~lief ;mn wnt
of mandamus. Monroe County bas filed ii.s le~p01J~e lUl.d motion to disrr.i:;:; Camplaint alleges
that resolution is invalid because it was not enacted pursuant to publi\,; notice requireill~nts of
Chapter 166. Motion to dismiss is based on grounds that Chapter 166 applies owy to
munidvalitie.; and moratorium is not an ordinance because it is not enforceable as a local law, as
defined by Florida statutes Thus, <trloption of resolution was not subject to public notice
fequi.H~fiient5
"