Town of Ponce Inlet v. Pacetta, LLC

Citations: 63 So. 3d 840; 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7250; 36 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1092Docket: No. 5D10-1123

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; May 20, 2011; Florida; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Town of Ponce Inlet appeals a final summary judgment favoring Pacetta, LLC, which invalidated a town charter amendment and an accompanying ordinance that imposed stricter land use restrictions on Pacetta's property, particularly concerning dry boat storage facilities. The court reviews the case de novo, affirming that the summary judgment was appropriate. The Town contends that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the number of parcels affected by the amendment, as Florida Statutes section 163.3167(12) prohibits local initiatives affecting five or fewer parcels. The court emphasizes the importance of protecting small landowners from public vote interference in development plans, maintaining that such decisions should be made by elected officials. Pacetta provided uncontroverted evidence demonstrating that its land constituted a single parcel under the Growth Management Act, despite its prior ownership in smaller tracts. This evidence included affidavits, depositions, and sworn testimony, confirming that the land was contiguous and designated for a single mixed-use development. The Town's arguments that the court should have considered past uses, that Pacetta's lack of permit applications invalidated its claims, and that a mixed-use development cannot qualify as a parcel are rejected as inconsistent with the statute's language.

Section 163.3164(16) defines 'parcel' as land intended for use or development as a unit, which allows for a planned future use without requiring owners to file applications beforehand. It does not restrict development units to single uses. The trial court found that a citizens’ initiative referendum impacted five or fewer parcels, thereby violating section 163.3167(12) and declaring it invalid. Consequently, the ordinance that aligned the comprehensive plan with the referendum was also deemed invalid to uphold section 163.3167(12). The Town's argument against invalidation under the 'fairly debatable' standard, as established in Martin County v. Yusem, was rejected. Unlike Yusem, where a board exercised broad discretion, the Board here had no alternatives but to adopt an amendment reflecting the invalid referendum, thus lacking the deference typically given to legislative actions. The trial court's ruling on other grounds was unnecessary for its judgment, as the invalidation based on section 163.3167(12) was sufficient. The ordinance amended the Town's comprehensive plan to include land use restrictions from the referendum. A hypothetical example illustrated that a single-use development could be counted as one 'unit,' whereas a mixed-use development would require counting each use separately. Pacetta had previously collaborated with the Town for plan amendments compatible with its mixed-use development until the referendum obstructed these efforts. The Town's building moratorium further complicated Pacetta's plans, as it would have led to permit denials regardless of the referendum. Evidence confirmed that the referendum specifically impacted Pacetta’s land and two other parcels.