City of Temple Terrace v. HILLSBOROUGH ASS'N, ETC.
322 So.2d 571, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 18792 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a state agency or its contractor proposes a land use that conflicts with a local zoning ordinance, the issue of immunity from local zoning is determined by a "balancing of interests" test, requiring the governmental unit to prove that its public interests outweigh local concerns.
Facts:
- On May 29, 1974, the Hillsborough Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc. (Association) contracted with the Division of Retardation, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services of the State of Florida, to provide respite care facilities for mentally retarded citizens.
- On June 13, 1974, Mr. Cook, a member of the Association's Board of Directors, purchased a five-bedroom house located in an area of the City of Temple Terrace zoned for "single family residential" use.
- The following month, with Mr. Cook's permission, the Association took possession of the house and began operating a respite care center on the premises.
- The center provided short-term residence and care, primarily for mentally retarded children, averaging two-week stays for about eleven unrelated individuals at a given time.
- The Division of Retardation paid the Association a specified sum per day for each client housed at the center and maintained supervision and inspection of the services.
- Neighbors of the center reported loud noises, screams, and moans from residents, instances of mentally retarded residents wandering through the neighborhood, and a heavy volume of traffic on what was formerly a quiet street.
- Neither Mr. Cook nor the Association applied to the City of Temple Terrace for a zoning variance or special exception.
- Testimony indicated that other areas in the city existed where the center could have been established without violating zoning ordinances.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Temple Terrace, joined by several local residents, filed a lawsuit in a trial court (court of first instance) to enjoin the Hillsborough Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc. (Association) from operating its respite care center.
- The plaintiffs alleged that the center constituted a nuisance and violated the city's "single family residential" zoning ordinance.
- The trial court entered a judgment finding that although the use of the premises was contrary to the city's zoning ordinance, the ordinance could not be enforced because the Association, in performing state-mandated services, stood in the shoes of the State of Florida and was therefore immune from municipal zoning.
- The trial court also found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their nuisance claim.
- The City of Temple Terrace and the residents (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state agency or its contractor, performing a state function, automatically receive immunity from local municipal zoning ordinances, or must its proposed land use be subject to a "balancing of interests" test to determine its applicability?
Opinions:
Majority - Grimes, Judge
No, a state agency or its contractor is not automatically immune from municipal zoning ordinances; instead, the court adopts a "balancing of interests" test to resolve such conflicts. The court first affirmed the trial court's finding that the Association was properly performing services which the state is required to do and that, as a contractor for the state, it would be entitled to any immunity the state agency possessed. However, the court then critically examined several traditional tests for governmental immunity from zoning, including the "superior sovereign" test, the "governmental-proprietary" test, the "power of eminent domain" test, and the "statutory guidance" test. It found each of these tests to be either too simplistic, inconsistent, or inapplicable, particularly given Florida's modern constitutional provisions granting municipalities broad home rule powers and the increasing complexity of state functions. The court explicitly adopted the "balancing of interests" test, previously articulated in cases like Rutgers, State University v. Piluso, as the fairest and most flexible approach. This test requires a case-by-case determination based on a comprehensive evaluation of factors such as the legislative intent regarding the agency or function involved, the nature and scope of the entity seeking immunity, the kind of function or land use involved, the extent of the public interest, the effect of local zoning, and the impact on legitimate local interests. The court emphasized that the governmental unit proposing a use contrary to zoning has the burden to demonstrate that its public interests outweigh the local concerns. Recognizing that its opinion marked a significant shift in legal practice and involved a question of great public interest, the court certified the case to the Supreme Court of Florida for definitive statewide guidance.
Analysis:
This case marks a significant jurisprudential shift in Florida regarding intergovernmental zoning conflicts, moving away from bright-line immunity rules to a more nuanced, fact-intensive balancing test. By rejecting automatic sovereign immunity, the court empowers local governments to exert greater control over land use within their jurisdictions, even when state agencies are involved. This decision promotes greater accountability for state agencies by compelling them to consider local land-use impacts and explore alternative sites, fostering cooperation and more responsible land-use planning in an era of growing population and diminishing land. The adoption of the balancing test necessitates a more collaborative approach between state and local entities, potentially leading to fewer unilateral state actions and more integrated development.
