This put up was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.
Over the earlier various a very long time, Edward Dean and others began purchasing for contiguous two parcels of land on Pine Island in Lee County, Florida, “for farming and eventual sale for residences.” A number of the land was zoned for agricultural use and included a “Rural” future land use designation that allowed a residential density of 1 dwelling unit per acre (1 du/1 acre) beneath the Lee County Full Plan. In 2003, Lee County modified the “Rural” designation to “Coastal Rural” – lowering the density to no less than one dwelling unit per every ten acres. In 2010, Mr. Dean and Gary Wishnatzki formed Dean Need and submitted a development utility to Lee County trying to find an administrative enhance within the typical most density for the “Coastal Rural” lands and for a enable for 336 dwelling fashions over its 640 acres. In 2015, Lee County’s Zoning Division responded that it was not licensed to administratively approve the equipment, and urged that Dean Need “submit an utility for a deliberate development in keeping with the Land Enchancment Code or a suitable modification to the Lee Plan.” In 2016, Lee County amended the Plan, setting the density of the “Coastal Rural” lands to no less than one dwelling unit per 2.7 acres. Dean Need purchased the property “as is” at public sale allegedly because of lack of market curiosity, litigation costs, and Mr. Dean’s retirement, rising age, and medical payments. The product sales contract specified that Dean Need retained all rights to monetary help inside the pending lawsuit. The trial court docket docket lastly found Dean Need’s appraisal legit because of it included solely property that it owned, and Dean Need solely alleged damages stemming from “the loss in residential density of its Rural/Coastal Rural property”, and Dean Need appealed.
On attraction, Lee County claimed that the trial court docket docket was applicable discover that the Act’s plain language “affords restoration solely to the ‘property proprietor’ as outlined inside the Act, which requires the claimant to retain licensed title to the subject property until the case is concluded.” Lee County extra contended that Dean Need’s put up hoc retention of rights to money did not amount to an equitable or licensed title for it to be a “property proprietor” beneath the Act. Upon evaluation of the Act, the court docket docket found the Act did not use a tense or phrases that allows a claimant, who held licensed title before now, when the lawsuit was filed or when the property was burdened, to accumulate help. Moreover, the court docket docket determined the modification to the Act did not apply retroactively because of the legislature did not categorical a clear intent to take motion. As a result of the trial court docket docket appropriately interpreted the Act’s plain language, the court docket docket held Dean Need’s argument a number of judicial taking moreover failed, since Claims beneath the Act have been for presidency actions that did not amount to constitutional takings.
Dean Need, LLC v. Lee County, 326 So.3d 840 (2021)