Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Starkey v. Okaloosa County
Citations: 512 So. 2d 1040; 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2218; 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10146Docket: No. BN-293
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; September 8, 1987; Florida; State Appellate Court
Appellants James and Alice Starkey and Bobbie Scheffer are challenging the Okaloosa County Board of Commissioners' adoption of Ordinance Nos. 85-08 and 85-09, which pertain to the zoning classifications of their properties in Bayview Subdivision, Fort Walton Beach, Florida. The Starkeys own a parcel originally zoned as residential urban apartment (RUA), later changed to residential urban single (RUS), while Scheffer's property was zoned as business general (BG). A previous lawsuit led to the RUS classification being set aside due to arbitrary county actions, with the court ruling that no changes had occurred to justify the rezoning. Despite an appeal by Okaloosa County being dismissed, a new zoning map reflecting the RUS designation was adopted but not corrected as requested by the landowners. Following a subsequent lawsuit that mandated the correction of the zoning map, Okaloosa County enacted the contested ordinances affirming the RUS zoning. Starkey and Scheffer then filed a lawsuit asserting that the ordinances were invalid due to lack of evidence showing the prior zoning classifications were detrimental to public interests, and that no substantial changes warranted the rezoning. They claimed the enactment was arbitrary and capricious, driven by certain commissioners' preferences for RUS zoning. A trial de novo was conducted, where testimony was provided by the appellants and a county commissioner, with James Starkey stating he believed the RUA classification would not harm the community. Arthur Cruickshank, representing property owners in Bayview Subdivision, opposed the RUA zoning classification, emphasizing that the area had primarily consisted of single-family homes, except for two duplexes owned by Scheffer. He noted that since 1974, nineteen single-family homes had been constructed nearby, arguing that allowing multifamily dwellings and businesses would undermine the neighborhood's integrity and reduce property values. Larry Anchors, who supported the zoning changes, indicated that they were intended to preserve neighborhood integrity and ensure consistent land use. The trial judge reviewed the evidence and personally inspected the parcels. The trial court upheld the rezoning ordinances, finding that the area, predominantly low-density single-family residences, had changed significantly since 1974, and that the ordinances promoted neighborhood integrity, preserved its residential character, protected existing property values, and mitigated traffic-related issues. On appeal, the appellants raised four issues: First, they claimed Okaloosa County was barred by the doctrine of election of remedies from seeking both judicial and legislative relief simultaneously. The court disagreed, stating this doctrine only applies to judicial remedies. Second, the appellants argued there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that the ordinances were not adopted capriciously to influence ongoing litigation. The court found that Okaloosa County's legislative prerogative to rezone was consistent and not capricious, distinguishing this case from prior precedent. Third, the appellants contended that Okaloosa County did not follow proper procedures for enacting the ordinances. The court disagreed, noting that public hearings were held, and appropriate notices were published, despite the Planning and Zoning Commission not making a recommendation due to ongoing litigation. The Okaloosa Board of County Commissioners conducted a public hearing, properly advertised, to assess the zoning classification of two parcels, attended by appellants and their counsel. The commissioners voted to classify the parcels as RUS and enacted two ordinances amending the official zoning map accordingly. The hearing's purpose was to clarify that the zoning for Bayview Subdivision was RUS, as noted in the meeting minutes. The county attorney drafted the hearing notice and ordinances, reflecting the county's intent to zone all property in Bayview Subdivision as RUS. The appellants contended the rezoning was arbitrary and unnecessary for public welfare. However, the court stated that zoning amendments are valid if reasonably related to public health, safety, or morals, and that the reasonableness of such changes is often debatable. No change in area conditions is required for rezoning, but once a zoning classification is judicially confirmed, it must be upheld unless conditions change. A prior 1975 judgment invalidated a zoning change from RUA to RUS for a parcel, binding the parties to that decision until significant changes occurred. The trial court found substantial changes, including the construction of nineteen single-family homes since the original zoning, establishing a residential character in the area. This evidence was deemed sufficient to overcome the prior judgment's res judicata effect. The trial court concluded the rezoning would enhance neighborhood integrity, preserve its residential character, and address potential issues from increased population and traffic. The appellants failed to prove the zoning authority's decision lacked relevance to community welfare. The ruling was affirmed, with a dissent from Judge Barfield regarding the Scheffer parcel, which had not been previously adjudicated.